On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:28 +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:23:20PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:04 +0200, Petr Uzel wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I hacked the following patch with which it is possible to use > > > "umount $dir" instead of "fusermount -u $dir", which IMHO is an > > > improvement in usability. It seems to work (at least for me), however, > > > I have to admit that I don't like it very much, because: > > > - it complicates umount > > > - duplicates code from fusermount > > > > And this is not the only one that would have to be duplicated. The > > mount and umount races that were fixed in fusermount in recently and not > > so recently would also have to be added to util-linux, which would > > actually be a good thing, since in theory they could affect fstab based > > user mounts as well (though that is much more unlikely than with fuse, > > where the user chooses the mountpoint). > > Maybe we need to call umount2() with UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW flag for > non-root users in umount(8). I think it should be enough for > umount(8) (where almost all is controlled by system admin in fstab). > > See below. Comments? UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW is a good idea but not enough, it will only deal with last path component changing to a symlink. If previous path component is changed then UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW will not have any effect. What fusermount does is change cwd to the parent directory, check if cwd matches that of the intended path, and then umount with UMOUNT_NOFOLLOW. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
