Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 1634659

Summary:	-mount needs to be slightly different from -xdev
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Daniele <dconsoli>
Component:	findutils	Assignee:	Kamil Dudka <kdudka>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	BaseOS QE - Apps <qe-baseos-apps>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	7.7-Alt	CC:	daniele, dconsoli, kdudka, kwalker, pkhedeka
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1652182 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-11-06 17:40:38 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1652182
Bug Blocks:	1643104, 1719445, 1801675

Description Daniele 2018-10-01 09:52:25 UTC

As the upstream bug on find POSIX definition has been resolved
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1133
And the definition of -mount has been therefore changed

As also reported in upstream (GNU bug)
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54745

My customer would like to have the related downstream bug opened.

Short note over the modification need:
"""
When restricting the search to files on one file system, it can sometimes be desirable for the crossing points themselves to be acted on and sometimes for them not to be acted on. (Crossing points are mount points and, if the -L option is specified, symbolic links to directories on other file systems.) The -xdev primary acts on them and the -mount primary does not. However, -mount also does not act on symbolic links to non-directory files on other file systems (if -L is specified). If there is a need for an application to exclude crossing points but include symbolic links to non-directory files on other file systems, this can be achieved by using two find commands as follows: 
find -L dir -mount -type d -print 
find -L dir -xdev ! -type d -print 
(in a subshell whose output is piped to sort, if the order matters). 
If both -mount and -xdev are specified, find obeys both primaries but the end result is the same as if -xdev were not specified. 
"""

Comment 2 Kamil Dudka 2018-10-01 12:14:35 UTC

I do not think we can change the current behavior in a minor update of RHEL-7.

Comment 4 Kamil Dudka 2018-11-19 13:19:54 UTC

*** Bug 1607772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Kamil Dudka 2018-11-19 13:21:36 UTC

Given the fact that we are not able to implement this in a backward compatible way, are you fine with moving this request to RHEL-8?

Comment 6 Daniele Palumbo 2018-11-21 16:14:29 UTC

Kamil,

Can you please describe why the change cannot be implemented in RHEL7?
Even if disrupting from the current behavior, once properly documented should not have an impact, and would allow the current production RHEL to be in line with POSIX definition.

Comment 7 Daniele 2018-11-21 16:15:49 UTC

(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #5)
> Given the fact that we are not able to implement this in a backward
> compatible way, are you fine with moving this request to RHEL-8?

Hi Kamil. I have cloned this bug for RHEL8. If we want this to make it, I guess we need to start looking at it upstream relatively soon since we're past the beginning of the Beta program.

Comment 8 Kamil Dudka 2018-11-21 17:28:05 UTC

(In reply to Daniele Palumbo from comment #6)
> Can you please describe why the change cannot be implemented in RHEL7?

I am not saying that it "cannot be implemented in RHEL7", I am just saying that it cannot be implemented in a backward compatible way.

> Even if disrupting from the current behavior, once properly documented
> should not have an impact,

How come?  If a script relies on the current behavior, it will break after minor update.  A documentation would hardly help on its own because someone still needs to read the documentation and update the script accordingly.

> and would allow the current production RHEL to be
> in line with POSIX definition.

That is usually expected from major updates of RHEL.  In minor updates of RHEL, the compatibility with the pre-update behavior is way more important than compatibility with the latest POSIX.

Comment 9 Daniele Palumbo 2018-12-28 08:40:08 UTC

(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #8)
> I am not saying that it "cannot be implemented in RHEL7", I am just saying
> that it cannot be implemented in a backward compatible way.
[...]
> That is usually expected from major updates of RHEL.  In minor updates of
> RHEL, the compatibility with the pre-update behavior is way more important
> than compatibility with the latest POSIX.

Apart from creating another switch, not documented in POSIX,
which can be a possible path for RHEL7 to have this implemented?

Comment 10 Kamil Dudka 2018-12-29 13:21:57 UTC

I believe you can implement the needed functionality on top of the utilities we already have in RHEL-7.  Please have a look at the following examples:

    bug #1607772 comment #3
    bug #1607772 comment #8
    bug #1607772 comment #9

Comment 13 Kamil Dudka 2020-11-06 17:40:38 UTC

We do not implement new features in RHEL-7 any more.  This is still waiting for a solution to be developed upstream.  The progress will be tracked in bug #1652182.  Closing WONTFIX for RHEL-7.