[Roger Leigh] > I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement > this. Note that it only handles migration in one direction, that > it, it will not switch /back/ from a symlink in the absence of > /proc/mounts. While this could be added, is this a situation we > really need to cater for?
Last time I checked, /proc/mounts did not contain all the status information stored by mount in /etc/mtab, and thus were not really safe to use in all cases as a replacement for /etc/mtab. I do not remember the details, but it might have been related to SMB mounts. Did this change? If not, replacing /etc/mtab with a symlink is not really safe to do. I believe that before this change is introduced, someone should check if everything previously stored in /etc/mtab will be included in /proc/mounts, at least for nfs, smb/cifs, fuse (like sshfs and others), to make sure we do not introduce a regression. I am aware that the new "container" stuff in Linux make /proc/mounts content not match the stuff in /etc/mtab if processes have limited access/view, but am not sure if that is a bigger problem than loosing information in /etc/mtab that might be needed by umount. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
