linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs: add ignore mount option

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 04:18:28 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:     autofs mailing list <autofs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] autofs: add ignore mount option

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:44:15AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:

> Al,
> 
> On a different note the above request also raised another
> question about statvfs(3) automount behaviour.
> 
> In glibc statvfs(3) uses statfs(2) and translates the return
> to a statvfs structure.
> 
> I wasn't aware but apparently statvfs(3) (and presumably statfs(2))
> doesn't trigger an automount on Solaris whereas we do. I think
> statfs() is probably the only exception to the convention that
> stat family system calls don't trigger an automount.
> 
> So far I've said that this is a long standing behaviour in the
> Linux kernel and changing it could lead to unpleasant surprises
> for those that have come to expect this behaviour so such a change
> would not be well received.
> 
> But I do need to ask your opinion, so what are your thoughts about
> changing this?

Probably should've done it that way, but I'm afraid it's much too
late by now...