Unable to set log priority for all direct mounts

Unable to set log priority for all direct mounts

[Goldwyn Rodrigues]

Hello,

Since the work to have a single FIFO file for setting log priority
(16ea4156 ("autofs-5.1.8 - switch to application wide command pipe"), to
be more precise 16ea4156 (autofs-5.1.8 - switch to application wide
command pipe), automount has lost the ability to set the log priority of
all direct mounts using the path "/-".


# sudo automount -l info /-
Could not find device id for mount /-

This is because automount attempts to mount and get verifies the real
path which is non-existent in case of direct mounts "/-".

In the automount program, the log priority is set pretty early and much
before the master map is setup. So we cannot check on the autofs dev
either.

What would be the best way to solve this? Should we just document it
as a feature loss?

-- 
Goldwyn

Re: Unable to set log priority for all direct mounts

[Ian Kent]

On 15/5/26 04:01, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since the work to have a single FIFO file for setting log priority
> (16ea4156 ("autofs-5.1.8 - switch to application wide command pipe"), to
> be more precise 16ea4156 (autofs-5.1.8 - switch to application wide
> command pipe), automount has lost the ability to set the log priority of
> all direct mounts using the path "/-".
>
>
> # sudo automount -l info /-
> Could not find device id for mount /-
>
> This is because automount attempts to mount and get verifies the real
> path which is non-existent in case of direct mounts "/-".

Of course yes.


>
> In the automount program, the log priority is set pretty early and much
> before the master map is setup. So we cannot check on the autofs dev
> either.

But it should be settable on a per-mount basis.

The command line log setting was always meant to modify an existing

global log priority. Setting it for /- should mean setting it for

all direct mounts, ie. the global setting.


>
> What would be the best way to solve this? Should we just document it
> as a feature loss?

It sounds more like a regression, I'd rather try and fix it.


There should be (is/used to be?) a global log priority for both direct

and indirect mounts which shouldn't need this sort of validation and

should be used if the validation fails.


Let me have a look and get back.


Ian