Bug 771388

Summary: /etc/filesystems does not contain 'ext4'
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Ondrej Vasik <ovasik>
Component: setupAssignee: Ondrej Vasik <ovasik>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: qe-baseos-daemons
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 6.1CC: azelinka, berrange, kgrindley, ovasik, pknirsch
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: setup-2.8.14-14.el6 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 750506 Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-20 12:23:44 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 750506    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Ondrej Vasik 2012-01-03 15:29:01 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #750506 +++

Description of problem:

The mount command may use /etc/filesystems for mounting filesystems with type 'auto':

 [quote mount(8)]
              If  no  -t option is given, or if the auto type
              is specified,  mount  will  try  to  guess  the
              desired  type.   Mount  uses  the blkid or vol‐
              ume_id  library  for  guessing  the  filesystem
              type;  if  that  does not turn up anything that
              looks familiar, mount will try to read the file
              /etc/filesystems,  or,  if that does not exist,
              /proc/filesystems.  All of the filesystem types
              listed  there  will  be tried, except for those
              that are labeled "nodev"  (e.g.,  devpts,  proc
              and  nfs).   If /etc/filesystems ends in a line
              with  a  single  *  only,   mount   will   read
              /proc/filesystems afterwards.
 [/quote]

The setup RPM creates an /etc/filesystems which only contains

  # cat /etc/filesystems 
  ext3
  ext2
  nodev proc
  nodev devpts
  iso9660
  vfat
  hfs
  hfsplus


Since /etc/filesystems exists, and does not contain '*', /proc/filesystems will never be used.

Ordinarily libblkid would detect the filesystem type, so /etc/filesystems will not be consulted, but if it is consulted, it'll miss many modern filesystems, in particular 'ext4', but also 'brtfs'

Since ext4 is the default Fedora filesystem, it should really be included in /etc/filesystems. Alternatively appending a '*' would let it fallback to using /proc/filesystems.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
setup-2.8.31-2.fc15.noarch

How reproducible:
N/A

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

--- Additional comment from ovasik on 2011-11-02 09:26:01 EDT ---

Thanks for the report, fixed in rawhide(ext4 added), setup-2.8.42-1.fc17 ... do you want the update in f15 or rawhide fix is enough?

--- Additional comment from berrange on 2011-11-02 09:34:33 EDT ---

rawhide is sufficient for me

--- Additional comment from ovasik on 2011-11-02 09:46:49 EDT ---

Ok, thanks for quick reply, closing RAWHIDE.

--- Additional comment from ovasik on 2011-12-23 05:06:46 EST ---

*** Bug 769962 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

--- Additional comment from ovasik on 2011-12-23 05:14:37 EST ---

Reopening, will fix that in F15/F16 as well.

--- Additional comment from updates on 2012-01-03 07:09:46 EST ---

setup-2.8.36-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/setup-2.8.36-3.fc16

--- Additional comment from updates on 2012-01-03 07:11:01 EST ---

setup-2.8.33-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/setup-2.8.33-2.fc15

--- Additional comment from kgrindley.edu on 2012-01-03 10:09:59 EST ---

also broken in RHEL6

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2012-06-20 12:23:44 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0778.html