From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: vapier@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:00:28 -0500 From: Mike Frysinger To: Karel Zak Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: mount nofail: what failures should we allow ? Message-ID: <20160120200028.GE14840@vapier.lan> References: <20160119232458.GO14840@vapier.lan> <20160120102845.olo242uqrfzld6rh@ws.net.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="O2gaCPMlz9o7j9TI" In-Reply-To: <20160120102845.olo242uqrfzld6rh@ws.net.home> List-ID: --O2gaCPMlz9o7j9TI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20 Jan 2016 11:28, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 06:24:58PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i've received two requests for the "nofail" option. the doc for the > > option is a bit ... terse ... so it's hard to guess at the overall > > intention. >=20 > man mount: > nofail Do not report errors for this device if it does not exist. >=20 > from my point of view this description is pretty explicit :-) does it mean the device node doesn't exist (ENOENT) ? or does it also accept the node being there, but returning other errors like ENXIO (the driver isn't loaded) or ENOTDIR (bad path) or ENOTBLK (used a bad path like /dev/zero) or ENOMEDIUM (the node & hardware exists, but is not loaded) ? there's probably other errno values you could catch here. surely you agree that "does not exist" does not cover all these cases. or at the very least, it's pretty ambiguous/fuzzy. > > (2) ignore unknown fs types. e.g. when a kernel config/module is missi= ng > > support for the requested filesystem type. so a fstab entry like: > > ..src.. /mnt/foo somefs defaults,nofail > > rather than error out with: > > mount: unknown filesystem type 'somefs' > > it would just issue a warning like it does for other nofail options. >=20 > I'm not sure with this. It's unusual situation when any filesystem is unk= nown > for libblkid, but it's pretty common that kernel returns EINVAL. This > happen when a kernel config/module is missing, but also if you specify > wrong mount options and in some another situations. I don't think we > want to hide such problems. It's too generic... i think there's a lot going on in this response. let me distill it a bit. if i have a reiserfs that is usable, but i forgot to enable or load the reiserfs kernel driver, should nofail be allowed to skip ? or is this a hard failure ? -mike --O2gaCPMlz9o7j9TI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWn+dcAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBfhQQAMukzSR4yEHFouHOTn5sNtFd 1prM+UF5PhiE2x+OB9hMQqMFtenIikCDdfo++i/46sJtnafeD7TXPmT68VF8diNg THxJ0hCn0BGlvOYCRviZLcG9QY9HUEP2/SqEqFBjAhZqSlDsenHUGQQQoVj5zThg 0MrWmSg01gsdfK1pOTJohqIBmkn/3I7hINDaC6Oue6G36KrujJ3hIZ997jTai1AV 3EAVwRx78h4x5XB0YlJPJNcPi4buJB6NqhcXKUoD4SzQUlKBTCTsi3/cetG5vp1l Gx5JLF0mHAh2bVlX0w86p1mGtZH1OPJRZUOgrLZjLsR2fysg6312Ov1TPRIjGQW5 NmzshS7IEuZ3DJpXhLkFlLJKGwl8SD8DlnNY1NW4vsHsJJQ35P0QEZRdcWodLXxv 9e0p+TnuRIgevQ9ZT20RJlE9MrQCavk0qYAUksKSyc9oGBMluduCmah+1slbVo5N QNQ2Grtif4onKvhEph7CVa/ogB/rcfVSoGgDb45SxxZRKR6HAwZnS7aAPxRdmTcy QXjxohaBk14gGr55cDYYw4hhHWyRaVRHLBqypTSpmt5OzksoO0wq18bMZvKevz5N 9aZexcBFXX2Vyz3P7aHpNEY2Fj2lb+U88LB95c+GlWhygYyYF8AGsNjbCkTZzB5v IoSFHI1ORrDEbWV8eqBW =Yx9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --O2gaCPMlz9o7j9TI--