[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070831074028.GR21979@unthought.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:40:28 +0200
From: Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@...hought.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Frank van Maarseveen <frankvm@...nkvm.com>,
Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>,
'Linux Kernel Mailing List' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:16:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
...
> > Why aren't we doing that for any other filesystem than NFS?
>
> How hard is it to acknowledge the following little word:
>
> "regression"
>
> It's simple. You broke things. You may want to fix them, but you need to
> fix them in a way that does not break user space.
Trond has a point Linus.
What he "broke" is, for example, a ro mount being mounted as rw.
That *could* be a very serious security (etc.etc.) problem which he just fixed.
Anything depending on read-only not being enforced will cease to work, of
course, and that is what a few people complain about(!).
If ext3 in some rare case (which would still mean it hit a few thousand users)
failed to remember that a file had been marked read-only and allowed writes to
it, wouldn't we want to fix that too? It would cause regressions, but we'd fix
it, right?
mount passes back the error code on a failed mount. autofs passes that error
along too (when people configure syslog correctly). In short; when these
serious mistakes are made and caught, the admin sees an error in his logs.
This is not wrong. This is good.
--
/ jakob
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists