From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 22 21:19:04 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9091065676
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com)
Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3E88FC16
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (from bonomi@localhost)
	by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id p5MLJ1gU059870
	for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:19:01 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:19:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Message-Id: <201106222119.p5MLJ1gU059870@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20110622165607.2652ddbd@gumby.homeunix.com>
Subject: Re: 'mount -u' stumper
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:19:04 -0000

> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Wed Jun 22 10:57:33 2011
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:56:07 +0100
> From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: 'mount -u' stumper
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:54:53 -0500 (CDT)
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>
> > That's a large part of why I want to make it 'go away'.  It _is_ a
> > "lie" on a RO system.  Meaningless, and 'misleading' if you don't see
> > the RO option as well.
> > 
> > When the filesystem _does_ need to be RW, I _want_ softupdates
> > enabled. It's a 'good thing' then;.  When it's initially mounted RO
> > softupdates are _visibly_ off.  I just want to restore that precise
> > situaion/presentation when i 'update' mount thefilesystem to RO.
>
> I'd argue the other way around, that mount should display what's
> configured even if some options do nothing in combination. 
>

I wouldn't argue very hard about that.  what I _really_ want is 
'consistency', As it is, If I have updated mounted the RO filesystem as 
RW, and then update mount it again, _back_to_ RO, I get a security
alert  overnight because things "aren't the same" as they were previously.
Insult  to injury, next time I reboot -- even _months_ later --  I get 
*_another* bogus security alert, because 'soft-updates' has (finally!)
disappeared from the mount listing..