Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 71564

Summary: mount -t smbfs does not return a non zero value when mounting if smbmnt not found
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Jobst Schmalenbach <jobst>
Component: mountAssignee: Elliot Lee <sopwith>
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-01-14 18:33:45 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jobst Schmalenbach 2002-08-15 08:55:00 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508
Netscape6/6.2.3

Description of problem:
mount does not return an error when smbmnt (used by mount when doing an smbfs
mount) is not found in PATH but actually retuns that there was NO error.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RH7.1

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
As root and make sure /usr/sbin is NOT in path
1. /bin/mount -t smbfs -o username=SOMEVALIDNAME,password=SOMEVALIDPASS
//NTSERVER/SOMESHARE MOUNTPOINT
2. 

Actual Results:  root> /bin/mount -t smbfs -o
username=SOMEVALIDNAME,password=SOMEVALIDPASS //NTSERVER/SOMESHARE MOUNTPOINT >
/dev/null &2>1 
root> $echo $?
root> 0



Expected Results: some value greater 0 indicating that "smbmnt" was NOT found
and the mount did NOT succeed!

Additional info:

And yes, if you not redirect the output (which cannot be done in a script) and
READ the output on the terminal you know something is wrong .... but not when
run as a script ....
Comment 1 Elliot Lee 2003-01-14 18:33:45 UTC 
with 2.11y-2 I get an error code back, so I'm assuming this has since been fixed.