Hi guys,

A new util-linux is in [testing].

Changes:

* add to patches from upstream, in particular fixing
<https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26059> and
<http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737091>.

* enable libmount

With libmount we get support for /etc/mtab being both a regular file
and a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo. The latter is "the future", but
we won't force that as not all mount helpers (such as cifs, fuse, ntfs
and nfs) have been ported yet. If you don't use any of the unported
mount helpers, you can delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink
manually.

I'd especially appreciate signoffs from people using the unported
helpers, and especially with the "user" mount option, or anything else
non-standard. There was a problem with this when we tried libmount
with util-linux 2.19.1, but I (and Dave) could not reproduce this with
2.20.

Please test and signoff.

Cheers,

Tom

> * enable libmount
>
> With libmount we get support for /etc/mtab being both a regular file
> and a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo. The latter is "the future", but
> we won't force that as not all mount helpers (such as cifs, fuse, ntfs
> and nfs) have been ported yet. If you don't use any of the unported
> mount helpers, you can delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink
> manually.

What is the expected problem with fuse filesystems when /etc/mtab is a
symlink?
I have /etc/mtab as a symlink for quite some time, since I moved to
systemd, and haven't
noticed any problems with encfs or sshfs - both of which are fuse
filesystems



--
дамјан

On 09/19/2011 07:17 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

Hi guys,

A new util-linux is in [testing].

Changes:

* add to patches from upstream, in particular fixing
<https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26059> and
<http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737091>.

* enable libmount

With libmount we get support for /etc/mtab being both a regular file
and a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo. The latter is "the future", but
we won't force that as not all mount helpers (such as cifs, fuse, ntfs
and nfs) have been ported yet. If you don't use any of the unported
mount helpers, you can delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink
manually.

I guess you want to say /proc/self/mounts


I'd especially appreciate signoffs from people using the unported
helpers, and especially with the "user" mount option, or anything else
non-standard. There was a problem with this when we tried libmount
with util-linux 2.19.1, but I (and Dave) could not reproduce this with
2.20.

Please test and signoff.

Cheers,

Tom




--
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
cos^2alpha + sin^2alpha = 1

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> A new util-linux is in [testing].
>
> Changes:
>
> * add to patches from upstream, in particular fixing
> <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26059> and
> <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737091>.
>
> * enable libmount
>
> With libmount we get support for /etc/mtab being both a regular file
> and a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo. The latter is "the future", but
> we won't force that as not all mount helpers (such as cifs, fuse, ntfs
> and nfs) have been ported yet. If you don't use any of the unported
> mount helpers, you can delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink
> manually.
>
> I'd especially appreciate signoffs from people using the unported
> helpers, and especially with the "user" mount option, or anything else
> non-standard. There was a problem with this when we tried libmount
> with util-linux 2.19.1, but I (and Dave) could not reproduce this with
> 2.20.
>
> Please test and signoff.

NTFS and SSHFS mounting still works.

Signoff x86_64.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:17:05AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> A new util-linux is in [testing].
>
> Changes:
>
> * add to patches from upstream, in particular fixing
> <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26059> and
> <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737091>.
>
> * enable libmount
>
> With libmount we get support for /etc/mtab being both a regular file
> and a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo. The latter is "the future", but

This should be /proc/self/mounts. Not mountinfo.

> we won't force that as not all mount helpers (such as cifs, fuse, ntfs
> and nfs) have been ported yet. If you don't use any of the unported
> mount helpers, you can delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink
> manually.
>
> I'd especially appreciate signoffs from people using the unported
> helpers, and especially with the "user" mount option, or anything else
> non-standard. There was a problem with this when we tried libmount
> with util-linux 2.19.1, but I (and Dave) could not reproduce this with
> 2.20.
>
> Please test and signoff.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Damjan <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * enable libmount
>>
>> With libmount we get support for /etc/mtab being both a regular file
>> and a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo. The latter is "the future", but
>> we won't force that as not all mount helpers (such as cifs, fuse, ntfs
>> and nfs) have been ported yet. If you don't use any of the unported
>> mount helpers, you can delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink
>> manually.
>
> What is the expected problem with fuse filesystems when /etc/mtab is a
> symlink?

The problem would be with mount options that are not stored in the
kernel (so not in /proc/self/mounts). With libmount these are stored
in /run/monut/* instead, but if your helper does not use libmount they
will be lost. One example is the "user" option.

> I have /etc/mtab as a symlink for quite some time, since I moved to
> systemd, and haven't
> noticed any problems with encfs or sshfs - both of which are fuse
> filesystems

It might work fine depending on the options you use.

Cheers,

Tom

On 20/09/11 08:17, Tom Gundersen wrote:
<snip>

I'd especially appreciate signoffs from people using the unported
helpers, and especially with the "user" mount option, or anything else
non-standard. There was a problem with this when we tried libmount
with util-linux 2.19.1, but I (and Dave) could not reproduce this with
2.20.

Please test and signoff.


I do not use any of those helpers, but I will throw an i686 signoff your
way.


Allan

[2011-09-20 00:17:05 +0200] Tom Gundersen:
> I'd especially appreciate signoffs from people using the unported
> helpers, and especially with the "user" mount option, or anything else
> non-standard. There was a problem with this when we tried libmount
> with util-linux 2.19.1, but I (and Dave) could not reproduce this with
> 2.20.

No issue for me with any of my FUSE filesystems.

Signoff x86_64.

--
Gaetan