On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Karel Zak wrote:
mount:
- doesn't drop privileges properly when calling helpers [Ludwig Nussel]
How can a mount helper know without being setuid root and redundantly doing
mount(8)'s work that the user is allowed to mount via the 'user[s]' fstab
mount option?
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
This is an experimental patch for supporing unprivileged mounts and
umounts.
User unmount unfortunately still doesn't work if the kernel doesn't have
the unprivileged mount support but as we discussed this in last July that
shouldn't be needed
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
But 'fusermount -u /tmp/test' does work, doesn't it?
You're submitting patches to get rid of fusermount, aren't you?
Most users absolutely have no idea what fusermount is and they would
__really__ like to see umount(8) working finally.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
Most users seem to care deeply about things just work. Here is why
ntfs-3g also took the
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue 2008-01-08 12:35:09, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
For the suspend issue, there are also no easy solutions.
What are the non-easy solutions?
A practical point of view I've seen only fuse rootfs mounts to be a
problem. I remember Ubuntu
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
+static int reserve_user_mount(void)
+{
+ int err = 0;
+
+ spin_lock(vfsmount_lock);
+ if (nr_user_mounts = max_user_mounts !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
And another of my pet peeves with -bmap is that it uses 0 to mean sparse
which causes a conflict on NTFS at least as block zero is part of the $Boot
system file so it is a real, valid block... NTFS uses -1 to denote sparse
blocks internally.
