Bug 122505 - (IT_37052) [IA64] umount succeeds on busy NFS mounts
[IA64] umount succeeds on busy NFS mounts
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 120907
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
2.1
ia64 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jason Baron
Brian Brock
:
Depends On:
Blocks: 116726
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-05-05 06:20 EDT by Don Howard
Modified: 2013-03-06 00:56 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-02-21 14:03:00 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Don Howard 2004-05-05 06:20:53 EDT
[IA64] umount succeeds on busy NFS mounts 
 
mount-2.11g-6 
 
Linux version 2.4.18-e.43 (bhcompile@bullwinkle.build.redhat.com) 
(gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-124.7.2))  
#1 Thu Apr 8 15:45:28 EDT 2004 
 
 
How reproducible: 
  Always 
 
Steps to Reproduce: 
  1. mount a volume via NFS 
     # mount server:/remotedir /localdir 
 
  2. cd to the volume and umount the mounted directory 
     # cd /localdir 
     # umount /localdir 
 
Actual results: 
  The volume is unmounted successfully 
 
Expected results: 
  Unmount operation is rejected
Comment 1 Don Howard 2004-05-05 06:24:53 EDT
$ strace umount /home 
... 
close(3) = 0 
umount("/home", 0) = 0 
lstat("/etc/mtab", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=244, ...}) = 0 
open("/etc/mtab", O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0644) = 3 
...  
 
 
On i386 I see this: 
... 
close(3)                                = 0 
oldumount("/home")                      = -1 EBUSY (Device or 
resource busy) 
lstat64("/etc/mtab", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=235, ...}) = 0 
open("/etc/mtab", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_LARGEFILE, 0644) = 3 
... 
Comment 2 Don Howard 2004-05-05 06:27:32 EDT
May be related to  
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120907 
Comment 3 Fuchi Hideshi 2004-05-26 02:57:19 EDT
Hi Don-san, 

I think so. and I tested glibc-2.2.4-32.16 in people.redhat.com.
That glibc works fine.

Thanks,
Fuchi
Comment 6 Jason Baron 2004-05-28 13:55:30 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 120907 ***
Comment 9 Red Hat Bugzilla 2006-02-21 14:03:00 EST
Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.