From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756188AbXHaHki (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:40:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752941AbXHaHka (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:40:30 -0400 Received: from unthought.net ([212.97.129.88]:50783 "EHLO unthought.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752796AbXHaHk3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:40:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:40:28 +0200 From: Jakob Oestergaard To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Trond Myklebust , Frank van Maarseveen , Hua Zhong , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" , akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression Message-ID: <20070831074028.GR21979@unthought.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jakob Oestergaard , Linus Torvalds , Trond Myklebust , Frank van Maarseveen , Hua Zhong , 'Linux Kernel Mailing List' , akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <000701c7eb49$cff701c0$6fe50540$@com> <1188513433.6626.24.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1188535485.6626.85.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1188536658.6626.98.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:16:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > ... > > Why aren't we doing that for any other filesystem than NFS? > > How hard is it to acknowledge the following little word: > > "regression" > > It's simple. You broke things. You may want to fix them, but you need to > fix them in a way that does not break user space. Trond has a point Linus. What he "broke" is, for example, a ro mount being mounted as rw. That *could* be a very serious security (etc.etc.) problem which he just fixed. Anything depending on read-only not being enforced will cease to work, of course, and that is what a few people complain about(!). If ext3 in some rare case (which would still mean it hit a few thousand users) failed to remember that a file had been marked read-only and allowed writes to it, wouldn't we want to fix that too? It would cause regressions, but we'd fix it, right? mount passes back the error code on a failed mount. autofs passes that error along too (when people configure syslog correctly). In short; when these serious mistakes are made and caught, the admin sees an error in his logs. This is not wrong. This is good. -- / jakob