From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32420 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932593Ab2CFAxY (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:53:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4F556007.2030603@RedHat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:53:27 -0500 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Myklebust, Trond" CC: Linux NFS Mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] umount.nfs: normalize path names during umounts. References: <1330976165-19849-1-git-send-email-steved@redhat.com> <1330976165-19849-2-git-send-email-steved@redhat.com> <20120305212015.GA21904@us.ibm.com> <4F5559EA.7010206@RedHat.com> <1330993903.5407.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1330993903.5407.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/05/2012 07:31 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 19:27 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> On 03/05/2012 04:20 PM, Malahal Naineni wrote: >>> Steve Dickson [steved@redhat.com] wrote: >>> >>> Also, when you normalize, why not go the extra mile of doing it all the >>> way as the patch I posted? I wanted to cover specs like >>> "host:/server/../home/./blah". This patch only does partial >>> normalization. The original patch also normalizes /proc/mount entry's >>> pathname (this avoids dealing with trailing '/' hack that exists now). >> I just do not see the need for that type of complexity... Maybe I'm >> being a bit naive, but I see two problems here. One, v4 mounts >> with multiple slashes and two v4 mounts without any slashes... >> >> Now both of our patches do address those issues but mine only >> addresses those issues and no, it does not go the "extra mile" >> of addressing '..' in path names, but does it need to? Is >> there really an use case where people export things with ".." >> in the path? >> >> Sometimes going the just extra mile just brings more pain... >> for no reason... and believe me I'm no runner... 8-) > > Note that the NFSv4 server may have symlinks and/or referrals in the > mount path, in which case it is game over for this kind of approach > anyway: you can't 'normalise' your way to interpreting that... Well I guess we will cross that bridge when we get there... At this point I just want fixes these two bugs and move on... > > Is there any reason why we actually care about checking the crap > in /etc/mtab on umount? > Yeah... its called backwards compatibility with older distros... Believe, if I could bury mtab I would... in a New York minute! I just don't see it happening... steved.