Bug 452202
Summary: | autofs doesn't parse multi-mount quite right | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Ian Kent <ikent> | ||||||
Component: | autofs | Assignee: | Jeff Moyer <jmoyer> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Brock Organ <borgan> | ||||||
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | low | ||||||||
Version: | 4.7 | CC: | duck, ikent, jmoyer, kvolny, tao | ||||||
Target Milestone: | rc | ||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
Doc Text: |
* The method that the automount daemon used to parse maps failed when applied to rootless multi-mount map entries. Therefore, presented with such entries, autofs would not mount them. Improvements to the parsing code allow autofs to interpret these entries correctly and mount them.
|
Story Points: | --- | ||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2009-05-18 20:22:16 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: | |||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Ian Kent
2008-06-20 06:24:42 UTC
Created attachment 309903 [details]
Debug log showing the multi-mount fail
Created attachment 309905 [details]
Patch to check for root-less multi-mount map entry
Not sure this patch will work in all cases so a little
more testing would be in order.
I seem to remember you weren't entirely happy with
check_is_multi() when it went into version 4.1.4 so please
check that it is OK.
Wow, I didn't even know that was legal! I'll take a look, thanks! (In reply to comment #3) > Wow, I didn't even know that was legal! I'll take a look, thanks! Yeah, there's a few instances of it in the connectathon test suite. (In reply to comment #2) > Created an attachment (id=309905) [edit] > Patch to check for root-less multi-mount map entry Wow, I went ahead and created almost exactly the same patch. I really need to read more closely! > Not sure this patch will work in all cases so a little > more testing would be in order. I'll run it through rhts. > I seem to remember you weren't entirely happy with > check_is_multi() when it went into version 4.1.4 so please > check that it is OK. OK, I'll double check that. Thanks! (In reply to comment #5) > > I seem to remember you weren't entirely happy with > > check_is_multi() when it went into version 4.1.4 so please > > check that it is OK. > > OK, I'll double check that. It seems to work for all of the cases that I could come up with. This seems worth fixing to me. If it's approved, I'll write an rhts test case for it. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. This fix is available in autofs versions 4.1.3-235.5 and later. An RHTS test has been added under /CoreOS/autofs/bugzillas, subtest bz452202. Release note added. If any revisions are required, please set the "requires_release_notes" flag to "?" and edit the "Release Notes" field accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team. New Contents: * The method that the automount daemon used to parse maps failed when applied to rootless multi-mount map entries. Therefore, presented with such entries, autofs would not mount them. Improvements to the parsing code allow autofs to interpret these entries correctly and mount them. An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0991.html |