On 9/17/18 7:38 AM, jiyin@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: "Jianhong.Yin" <yin-jianhong@xxxxxxx> > > see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629705 > [nfs-utils] mount -osharecache failure but return 'true' > > mount.nfs4 -o context=system_u:object_r:user_home_dir_t:s0,sharecache $serv:$expdir $nfsmp > mount.nfs4 -o context=system_u:object_r:xferlog_t:s0,sharecache $serv:$expdir $nfsmp2 > ^^^ here mount fail, but return true. it confuse user! > > Anyway, we should not hide the failure and pretend that it > does not exist. > > Signed-off-by: Jianhong Yin <yin-jianhong@xxxxxxx> > --- > utils/mount/stropts.c | 9 --------- > 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/utils/mount/stropts.c b/utils/mount/stropts.c > index 4d2e37e..ca5bc7f 100644 > --- a/utils/mount/stropts.c > +++ b/utils/mount/stropts.c > @@ -1078,15 +1078,6 @@ static int nfsmount_fg(struct nfsmount_info *mi) > if (nfs_try_mount(mi)) > return EX_SUCCESS; > > - if (errno == EBUSY) > - /* The only cause of EBUSY is if exactly the desired > - * filesystem is already mounted. That can arguably > - * be seen as success. "mount -a" tries to optimise > - * out this case but sometimes fails. Help it out > - * by pretending everything is rosy > - */ > - return EX_SUCCESS; > - > if (nfs_is_permanent_error(errno)) > break; > > It code is here because of commit 3904d8102 which argues the re-mounting of a filesystem that is already mounted is not an error... which I tend to agree with... steved.
