Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:25:20 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mdmfs mount_mfs compatibility bug? Message-ID: <20010930002525.0255D3E04@bazooka.trit.org> In-Reply-To: <200109300112.aa88479@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>; from iedowse@maths.tcd.ie on "Sun, 30 Sep 2001 01:12:50 %2B0100"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> wrote: > In message <20010929163840.B629@lizzy.bugworks.com>, Jos Backus writes: > >> > >> This was fixed some time ago, I thought. Are you up to date? > > > >There was a commit to mdmfs.c in August. > >This is with yesterday's -current, sorry, should have mentioned that. > > The "mount -t mfs" case doesn't work with mdmfs, because mount(8) > uses the filesystem name, not the mount_xxx program as argv[0]. This seems to violate POLA. Would something break if it was changed to use mount_xxx (unforunately, I'm ~ 200 km away from my -current box at the moment, so I can't try it myself)? > I > had guessed this would be a problem when I read the commit message > for revision 1.7 of mdmfs.c, but then I forgot to mention it to > Dima. > > Here is a patch that should help - it makes mdmfs accept "mount_mfs" > or "mfs" to trigger compatibility mode instead of mount_*. The problem with this is that in a bikeshed far, far in the past, some people wanted to me able to call it "mount_md" instead of "mount_mfs". Of course, we could allow "mfs" and "md", but that seems rather ugly (what if someone wants "fish"?). I'd rather see mount(8) use mount_xxx, although if we think that would break something, your patch is probably the best solution. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010930002525.0255D3E04>