On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:03:51AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On 29/3/23 02:48, Karel Zak wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 01:39:09PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > > Karel do you find what I'm saying is accurate? > > > Do you think we will be able to get rid of the sloppy option over > > > time with the move to use the mount API? > > The question is what we're talking about :-) > > > > For mount(8) and libmount, there is nothing like the "sloppy" mount option. > > > > If you use it in your fstab or as "mount -o sloppy" on the command line, > > then it's used as any other fs-specific mount option; the library copies > > the string to mount(2) or fsconfig(2) syscall. The library has no clue > > what the string means (it's the same as "mount -o foobar"). > > Which is what the problem really is. > > > If anyone uses this option with a file system that has previously > > allowed it then mounts fail if it isn't handled properly. Then the > > intended purpose of it is irrelevant because it causes a fail. > > > I guess the notion of ignoring it for fsconfig(), assuming it isn't > > actually needed for the option handling, might not be a viable idea > > ... although I haven't actually added that to fsconfig(), I probably > > should add that to this series. > > > But first the question of whether the option is actually needed anymore > > by those that allow it needs to be answered. > > > In case anyone has forgotten it was introduced because, at one time > > different OSes supported slightly different options for for the same > > thing and one could not include multiple options for the same thing > > in automount map entries without causing the mount to fail. > > > So we also need to answer, is this option conflict still present for > > any of the file systems that allow it, currently nfs, cifs and ntfs > > (I'll need to look up the ntfs maintainer but lets answer this for > > nfs and cifs first). > > > If it isn't actually needed ignoring it in fsconfig() (a deprecation > > warning would be in order) and eventually getting rid of it would be > > a good idea, yes? Yes, I think this is a good idea. The whole reason for this mount option seems a bit hacky tbh so getting rid of it would be great.
