| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/14/2013 07:29 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> All, |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a |
| 8 |
>>>> symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1]. |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> Are there any remaining concerns about doing this? |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Apart from breaking umount -a and some other things? |
| 13 |
>>> None at all ;) |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> (The breakage is visible e.g. with umount -a tmpfs, which used to be |
| 16 |
>>> quite useful if you had a few chroots with /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs and |
| 17 |
>>> wanted to reset them. Now it'll also punt random things like /run if |
| 18 |
>>> you're lucky - and in the past it knocked out the OpenRC state directory |
| 19 |
>>> reliably) |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> I don't follow this: it seems like umount -a is supposed to unmount |
| 23 |
>> all filesystems. umount -a -t tmpfs would unmount all tmpfs |
| 24 |
>> filesystems. /run should be included in that set, even if mtab is a |
| 25 |
>> regular file. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> And the magic trick is to keep "system mounts" like /run out of |
| 29 |
> /etc/mtab (willful desynchronization) so that umount -a doesn't nuke |
| 30 |
> them by accident. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> ... why else would you keep such data in two non-synchronized locations?! :D |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
That's certainly a neat trick. However, it seems a bit weird to use a |
| 36 |
system-wide database for such a use case; what if multiple users are |
| 37 |
setting up mounts like this? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I guess the key takeaway from this is that people do unconventional |
| 40 |
things. Probably best to just change the default, and throw up a big |
| 41 |
warning for existing users as you indicated in your original reply. |
Archives