Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 67280
[RFE] be more picky about mount points (/. /.. etc)
Last modified: 2007-03-26 23:54:19 EDT
summary sez it all - i was allowed to pick /. and /.. as mount points (i'm sure i could have done /home and /home/. as sep. filesystems as well, for instance). it'd be nice if the validation check noticed directory components of "." or ".." and handled that
Will do.
I addressed this simple case with periods. Do you know of a definative list of what is accepted and what is not?
disallowing periods altogether is definitely one approach - I was thinking more about an approach that would basically do a sanity check on a path by split'ing itinto an array based on / and if any of the components came out to "." or ".." then change the path appropriately (just remove the element if it's "." or remove it and any preceding element for "..") Once the path's basically resolved to its canonical form (python's prob. got a better approach for getting to this canonical form) then this can be the new value in the mount point field and compared with the mount points of other filesystems. again, disallowing periods altogether is a possible solution, but one that'd be overkill since it'd end up disallowing lots of very valid and useful mount points (like if people do like /home.devel, /home.biz, /home.hr) course, I may be misunderstanding the question :)
if it's avail, it looks like os.path.normpath could be a definite help % python -c 'import os;print os.path.normpath("/home/../usr/.//foo")' /usr/foo then just check path vs. normpath(path) and if diff reset the value of the mountpoint dialog to the result?
as it stands, anaconda *does* reject mount point names with periods. i just tried to create one with the name "/7.3" and got refused. but "/73" was fine. periods should definitely be acceptable.
um, yes, msf said he was disallowing periods in the june 26th comment on this bug. Hence, why I'd rather do what I had recommended in using the normpath results, where /. and /.. and all that crap would get filtered out smartly. Disallowing periods is, I agree, a bad thing :/ Hopefully msf/katzj can get back to this bug entry soon, but they're pretty overloaded, of course ...
Will address in a future release
If it is a valid mount point, then anaconda should accept it. I noted that ks will do it, but pop up an ok box before doing so. This makes ks interactive;-( Could you please fix the check or at least skip it during ks.
We've made things a little better, but not going to allow everything. Have to have some limits of sanity here.