Bug 154129

Summary:	hal applies the "pamconsole" option to filesystems which don't support it
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin>
Component:	hal	Assignee:	David Zeuthen <davidz>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	mclasen
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-04-07 18:21:18 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Nalin Dahyabhai 2005-04-07 17:35:22 UTC

Description of problem:
The /etc/fstab entry for my USB flash reader specifies the filesystem type as
"vfat", and "pamconsole" as one of the flags.  I can't mount it.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.5.0.cvs20050404b-2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Use fdisk to partition a flash card, marking the partition as a "FAT16" (ID
6) partition.
2. Format the partition using "mkdosfs /dev/sdb4".
3. Insert the device.
4. Run "sudo mount /media/usbdisk"
  
Actual results:
Mount fails.
/etc/fstab includes:
  /dev/sdb4 /media/usbdisk vfat
pamconsole,exec,noauto,fscontext=system_u:object_r:removable_t,noatime,sync,managed
0 0

syslog includes:
  Apr  7 13:26:56 blade kernel: FAT: Unrecognized mount option "pamconsole" or
missing value

Expected results:
The filesystem should be mounted.

Additional info:
This is an SD card in a USB reader, but I don't expect that it's specific to
flash devices.

Comment 1 Nalin Dahyabhai 2005-04-07 17:37:17 UTC

Apparently the vfat module also rejects the "managed" option.  Removing both
allows step 4 to complete successfully.

Comment 2 David Zeuthen 2005-04-07 17:50:22 UTC

Both 'managed' and 'pamconsole' are only used by mount(1) and doesn't get sent
to the kernel (it wouldn't make sense). This sounds like a util-linux regression?

Comment 3 Nalin Dahyabhai 2005-04-07 18:21:18 UTC

Hmm, had an old util-linux-2.12pre-3 package on my box, so it wasn't current
(2.12p-5 is newer, even if RPM doesn't think so).