From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Waychison Subject: Re: submount vs automount Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:46:57 -0400 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <40E03D71.4060302@sun.com> References: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435E309@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> <40DC6F84.5020701@sun.com> <40E03CC2.7020601@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <40E03CC2.7020601@sun.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org, Paul Jakma , raven@themaw.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Waychison wrote: > Paul Jakma wrote: >>>This is a question of policy. And there are really two questions here. >>>The important one: >>> >>>- Does the user have the credentials to be allowed to mount this device? >>> >>>we already have things like pam_console and logindevperm to assist with >>>answering this question, if an admin so desires. >>> > > > Yup. However, this doesn't connect nicely with mount(8). mount(8) only > mounts as a user according to /etc/fstab rules, not by block device > owner :\ Maybe this should be fixed up somehow. > Oops. My bad, should have RTFMed mount(8) -- 'owner'. - -- Mike Waychison Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1 (650) 352-5299 voice 1 (416) 202-8336 voice http://www.sun.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA4D1xdQs4kOxk3/MRAtpVAJ95U9aHo2wm4vNLI25gf10WErrZYACfeIpB DneDKsyOskWQiVsDlt3ZFzg= =E3us -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----