Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 857
/etc/fstab parsing error. Not loading all filesystems
Last modified: 2008-05-01 11:37:48 EDT
Got around to upgrading to 5.2 today. Was wondering why it was not mounting my nfs filesystems... Found I had: /dev/hda1 none ignore 0 0 0 in /etc/fstab. Anything after this line would not mount. /dev/hda1 is an extended partition. Forget where this line originated from, I think an old install inserted it... If I tried (which was after the above line) mount /home/user3 it would say that it was not found in /etc/fstab or /etc/mtab. Deleting the above line from /etc/fstab, appears to have fixed the problem. Would it not be better for /etc/rc.d/init.d/nfsfs and anything else, that parses /etc/fstab to ignore lines that it does not understand, instead of quiting with no information. Below is my old /etc/fstab file: # # /etc/fstab # # <device> <mountpoint> <filesystemtype> <options> <dump> <fsckorder> /dev/hda5 / ext2 defaults 1 1 /dev/hda6 /var ext2 defaults 1 2 /dev/hda7 none swap sw /dev/hda8 /usr ext2 defaults 1 2 /dev/hda2 /home/user1 ext2 defaults 1 2 /dev/hdc1 /mirrors ext2 defaults 1 2 /dev/hda3 /mirrors/netwinder ext2 defaults 1 2 /dev/hdc2 /mirrors/other ext2 defaults 1 2 none /proc proc defaults /dev/hda1 none ignore 0 0 0 /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy ext2 noauto 0 0 /dev/fd0 /mnt/msdos msdos noauto 0 0 /dev/hdb /mnt/cdrom iso9660 ro 1 2 /dev/sbpcd0 /mnt/cdrom1 iso9660 noauto,ro 0 0 /dev/sbpcd1 /mnt/cdrom2 iso9660 noauto,ro 0 0134.117.76.10:/home/user3 /home/user3 nfs rw,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 nexus:/home/ftp /home/ftp-nexus nfs rw,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 nexus:/home/httpd /home/httpd-nexus nfs rw,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 nexus:/var/spool/mail /var/spool/mail nfs rw,hard,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 spoo:/home/user2 /home/user2 nfs rw,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 zhadum:/mirrors/versioned-winder /home/ftp/pub/winder nfs rw,soft,rsize=8192,wsize=8192
This looks more like a syntax error in /etc/fstab than a bug to me. Ignoring lines that are not understood is dangerous -- /etc/fstab has well defined syntax. Possibly mount should complain if it doesn't understand a line. This is difficult to implement correctly when mount is a wrapper passing opaque options to back-end tasks. Reopen if you have strong opinions otherwise.