Re: Non-configuration files in /etc
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Non-configuration files in /etc
- From: Robert Bihlmeyer <robbe@orcus.priv.at>
- Date: 01 May 2000 20:54:35 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87itwyxfro.fsf@hoss.orcus.priv.at>
- In-reply-to: Martijn van Oosterhout's message of "Sun, 30 Apr 2000 01:23:01 +1000"
- References: <200004270741.JAA16651@rai16.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> <878zxyr19i.fsf@hoss.orcus.priv.at> <20000428064039.C16430@justice.loyola.edu> <874s8mhxy7.fsf@hoss.orcus.priv.at> <20000428163655.L4189@kitenet.net> <390AFE55.445D0472@cupid.suninternet.com>
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@cupid.suninternet.com> writes:
[loop mounts]
> Can't exactly remember, but something goes wrong with this
> when you link mtab to /proc/mounts.
Since mount(8) snarfs the loop= options and passes them to losetup
rather then mount(2), the kernel nevers sees this options and thus
cannot record them in /proc/mounts. umounting this loop mount will
then *not* automatically free the loop device.
I don't quite get the reason for this, though. Look at the following:
~$ mount /iso/test
~$ grep /iso/test /etc/mtab /proc/mounts
/etc/mtab:/iso/img /iso/test iso9660 ro,noexec,nosuid,nodev,loop=/dev/loop0,user=robbe 0 0
/proc/mounts:/dev/loop0 /iso/test iso9660 ro,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0
umount should be capable of tearing down the right device, because it
is mentioned in /proc/mounts's first field. It would have to special
case on the device number, which is kind of ugly, though.
--
Robbe
Reply to: