On 14.08.2012 22:54, Harald Becker wrote:
[]
> My request is, to have Busybox mountpoint give at least same result as
> upstream ... not more, but not less!

> ... so just see how GNU mountpoint does the check (can't do it
> currently here on my absolutely overloaded notebook, hacking on this
> to get away from this situation).

Which GNU mountpoint utility (aka "upstream") you're talking about?
On my (debian) system, /bin/mountpoint comes from sysvinit package,
it is written by Miquel van Smoorenburg, and it has exactly the
same problem with bind mounts.

I'm interested to know which "GNU" mountpoint utility you're talking
about.

As for "reliability", /proc/self/mounts (or /proc/self/mountinfo which
is exactly of the same nature in this context) may have complex structure
describing complex structure of mounts on the sytem, when you can have
nested cross-mounts - so the utility will have to build whole tree
(or graph) of mounts to understand this structure.  Also, again due to
this same bind mounts, or (sym)links, or due to mount --move or something
else, the path given to `mountpoint' utility might be not the same path
recorded in /proc/mounts (or mountinfo - again, does not matter), it might
be some alternative path leading to the same directory.  So our great
mountpoint utility will need to very carefully canonicalize the given
argument first, before looking it up in mounts (or mountinfo), and there
is no single way to canonicalize a given path generally.  So parsing
mounts (or mountinfo) is inherently unreliable, even after somehow
overcoming the problem with special characters in pathnames.  We should
have some much more reliable interface here, and kernel does not provide
it.  So any utility which tries to detect such bind mounts is broken in
one or another way.

Thanks,

/mjt
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Reply via email to