linux-kernel - Re: request for patches: showing mount options

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]

Message-Id: <E1IESNi-0001B9-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:09:34 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	smfrench@...il.com
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, raven@...maw.net, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	kzak@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, lucho@...kov.net,
	zippel@...ux-m68k.org, hpa@...or.com, rathamahata@...4.ru,
	dhowells@...hat.com, sfrench@...ba.org, mhalcrow@...ibm.com,
	phillip@...lewell.homeip.net, hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp,
	mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, wli@...omorphy.com,
	shaggy@...tin.ibm.com, vandrove@...cvut.cz,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, aia21@...tab.net,
	mark.fasheh@...cle.com, kurt.hackel@...cle.com,
	reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu,
	dushistov@...l.ru, xfs-masters@....sgi.com, arnd@...db.de,
	holzheu@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: request for patches: showing mount options

> cifs and nfs (probably others) have some mount options which are mount
> order dependent ie may be invalid or ignored when you have more than
> one mount to the same server, or mount the same resource in two places
> with different options.  In the long run, at least for cifs, we may be
> able to better handle a user mounting to the same server twice with
> e.g. different security options (authentication, packet signing ...),
> but in the meantime are there any thoughts on whether those type of
> mount options should be displayed differently

I think they should be displayed normally, just as all the other
options.  If an option is shared by multiple mounts, that option
should be displayed for all of them.

This is similar to the case of per-mount vs. per-superblock options,
which aren't separated either.

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/