Re: the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@xxxxxx>]

(Aplologies for the indirect reply, I didn't see the cited message yet)

> On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 17:43 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:38:29 +0100, Bodo Eggert said:
> > 
> > > Maybe it's possible to extend the semantics of umount -l to change all
> > > cwds under that mountpoint to be deleted directories which will no
> > > longer cause the mountpoint to be busy (e.g. by redirecting them to a
> > > special inode on initramfs). Most applications can cope with that (if
> > > not, they're buggy),
> > 
> > You mean that a program is *buggy* if it does:
> > 
> > 	cwd("/home/user");
> > 	/* do some stuff while we get our cwd ripped out from under us */
> > 	file = open("./.mycconfrc");
> > 
> > and expects the file to be opened in /home/user???

If the user was bad, the user directory *will* just vanish ("what was your
login, please"), and any other directory may vanish, too:

$ mkdir /tmp/test;cd /tmp/test
$ ls -la
total 0
drwx------    2 7eggert  users          40 2005-01-05 03:00 .
drwx------    3 7eggert  users          60 2005-01-05 03:00 ..
$ # /tmp/test gets removed here
$ ls -la
total 0
$ echo foo>bar
-bash: bar: No such file or directory
$
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/