Re: the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!
> > > > Well, umount -l can be handy, but it does not allow you to get your CD
> > > > back from the drive.
> > > > 
> > > > umount --kill that kills whoever is responsible for filesystem being
> > > > busy would solve part of the problem (that can be done in userspace,
> > > > today).
> > > >...
> > > 
> > > What's wrong with
> > > 
> > >   fuser -k /mnt && umount /mnt
> > 
> > 1. Would need suid.
> 
> It needs suid only if you aren't root and you want to kill processes you 
> don't own.
> 
> Yes, this might cause problems e.g. if users are allowed to mount their 
> cdroms, but simply allowing them to kill processes of other users who 
> access this device isn't a solution, too.
> 
> > 2. Is a mindless slaughter of important processes.
> 
> It's what Pavel wanted to get included in umount.
> 
> Usually, you'll let fuser give you the list of processes and inspect 
> them manually.
> 
> > 3. Is a race condition.
> 
> Then put it into a while loop that executes until umount returns 0.
> 
> I still fail to see why I should implement half of fuser in umount. 
> Either you are working at the command line and know about fuser or you 
> are working through a GUI which can offer you a "kill all applications 
> accessing this device" button that calls fuser.

Okay, so the right solution is probably something more like

while umount /mnt; do
	fuser -km -TERM /mnt
	sleep 1
	fuser -km /mnt
done

Not sure how many command line users can do this... Perhaps including
fumount script doing this is good idea?
								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!