Re: User rw Permissions on New Hard Drive
On Fri 01 Mar 2019 at 07:30:15 (+0000), Dekks Herton wrote:
> David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes:
> > On Thu 28 Feb 2019 at 15:45:47 (-0500), Stephen P. Molnar wrote:
> >> # /etc/fstab: static file system information.
> >> #
> >> # Use 'blkid' to print the universally unique identifier for a
> >> # device; this may be used with UUID= as a more robust way to name devices
> >> # that works even if disks are added and removed. See fstab(5).
> >> #
> >> # <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
> >> # / was on /dev/sda1 during installation
> >> UUID=ce25f0e1-610d-4030-ab47-129cd47d974e / ext4
> >> errors=remount-ro 0 1
> >> # swap was on /dev/sda5 during installation
> >> UUID=a8f6dc7e-13f1-4495-b68a-27886d386db0 none swap sw
> >> 0 0
> >> /dev/sr0 /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0
> >>
> >> UUID=900b5f0b-4f3d-4a64-8c91-29aee4c6fd07 /sdb1 ext4 errors=remount-ro
> >> 0 1
> >>
> >> UUID=1f363165-2c59-4236-850d-36d1e807099e /sdc1 ext4 errors=remount-ro
> >> 0 1
> >
> > Well, you did ask for a sanity check, but those mount points are still
> > completely insane. And you still have 1 for the last field of your
> > non-root filesystems when it should be 2.
>
> Agree with non-root being 2 but that fstab looks like how debian does
> defaults, it likes errrors=remount-ro.
Or even errors=remount-ro. I do remember running sed's
s/defaults/errors=remount-ro,defaults/ many years ago when I
discovered its availability.
People here might object to seeing ro,errors=remount-ro in anyone's
fstab, but so what?
> > I always add an explicit rw or ro under options, along with defaults.
> > With systemd, I add nofail to any filesystems that aren't vital for
> > the system to run, which means the system will still boot fully
> > without them.
>
> nofail is intended for removable drives that could be missing on boot,
> such as Thinkpad ultrabay drives/CF or SD cards.
Maybe. I use user,noauto throughout fstab for my removables, and then
mount them when I connect them. I was under the impression that nofail
was aimed more at mounts that are made via 'iffy' technologies, like
those across a network.
But my use is entirely aimed at avoiding tears and work. Thus all my
Windows/manufacturer partitions on this dual-boot machine are mounted
nofail. After all, I have no idea whether some Windows operation or
update is going to tweak something that causes a mount to fail the
next time I boot linux.
On machines that I boot using WoL, I don't want to have to go and
turn on the monitor just to find out why it stalled booting.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: