Bug 154129 - hal applies the "pamconsole" option to filesystems which don't support it
hal applies the "pamconsole" option to filesystems which don't support it
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: hal (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: David Zeuthen
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-04-07 13:35 EDT by Nalin Dahyabhai
Modified: 2013-03-05 22:43 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-04-07 14:21:18 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nalin Dahyabhai 2005-04-07 13:35:22 EDT
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):

How reproducible:

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
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 13:37:17 EDT
Apparently the vfat module also rejects the "managed" option.  Removing both
allows step 4 to complete successfully.
Comment 2 David Zeuthen 2005-04-07 13:50:22 EDT
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 14:21:18 EDT
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).

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