Re: Yet another design for /proc. Or actually /kernel.

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Brenneke, Matthew Jeffrey (UMR-Student) wrote:

> 
>>Actually, /proc/mounts is currently broken, and is an excellent
>>example of why the above statement simply isn't true unless you apply
>>another level of indirection: try mounting something on a directory
>>the name of which contains whitespace in any form (remember, depending
>>on your setup this may be doable by an unprivileged user...)
>>
> 
>>	-hpa
>>
> 
> 
> mbrennek@spaceheater:/home/mbrennek# mkdir stuff\ and
> mbrennek@spaceheater:/home/mbrennek# mount -t vfat /dev/hda1
> /home/mbrennek/stuff\ and/
> mbrennek@spaceheater:/home/mbrennek# cat /proc/mounts
> /dev/ide/host0/bus0/target1/lun0/part1 / reiserfs rw 0 0
> /dev/hdb2 /home reisferfs rw 0 0
> none /dev/pts devpts rw 0 0
> non /proc proc rw 0 0
> /dev/hda5 /mnt/stuff vfat rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec 0 0
> /dev/hda1 /home/mbrennek/stuff\040and vfat rw 0 0
> mbrennek@spaceheater:/home/mbrennek#
> 
> Are you refering to the 040?
> 


Right, a good example of "additional encapsulation".

	-hpa