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: <1185605159.8326.5.camel@raven.themaw.net>
Date:	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:45:59 +0800
From:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	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

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >   all - fs has options, but doesn't define ->show_options()
> >   some - fs defines ->show_options(), but some options are not shown
> >   noopt - fs does not have options
> >   good - fs shows all options
> >   patch - I have a patch
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > autofs      all
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand this.
> > How does autofs show it's options without a ->show_options method?
> 
> It doesn't.  The "all" means, all of them need to be added to
> ->show_options(), not that all are shown.

Oh .. sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention.

But now might be a good time to propose the removal of autofs and rename
autofs4 to autofs. I would need to provide some way to map autofs4
module load requests to autofs for backward compatibility but haven't
thought about that yet.

> 
> I can see now that this is slightly confusing, sorry.
> 
> So the ones that need attention are "all" and "some".  The others are
> fine in theory.  Of course I may have missed something.
> 
> > > autofs4     some
> > 
> > OK, uid and gid aren't shown.
> > That should be straight forward to fix.
> > What's your time frame for this?
> 
> ASAP ;)
> 
> 2.6.24 would be a nice, but it won't be easy...

The autofs4 (and, if needed autofs) should be straight forward.
I'll do these.

Ian


-
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/