GNU bug report logs - #51425
Invalid <file-system> flags lead to a crash when booting

Previous Next

Full log

Message #32 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, bug-guix <at> gnu.org,
 51425 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jonathan Brielmaier <jonathan.brielmaier <at> web.de>
Subject: Re: bug#51425: file-system: validate flags
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 22:31:40 -0400

Hi Tobias,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> writes:

> Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
>> Another thing that is tricky about options is that some of them are
>> only
>> really understood by the 'mount' command line utility, not the
>> 'mount'
>> system call such as used in our init RAM disk (both are thrown
>> together
>> in 'man 8 mount' without an easy way to discern them apart, IIRC).
>
> Aha!  Let me introduce you to the only slightly unfortunately named
> ‘man 2 mount’ instead.

Eh, I'm not sure why I hadn't thought about that myself, thank you!  It
makes sense after all -- one man page (2) documents the options for the
system call, the other one (8) for the command.

> The way mount(8) lumps both together is… I guess it's user-friendly —
> in a way? — but it leads to this total confusion about what's what.
> Think of flags as literal bit flags, mainly because they are.

Hehe.

> Guix does make the distinction.  It's the right call but it leads to a
> brief education moment the first time you encounter both fields.
>
> You're absolutely right that mount options OTOH are arbitrary strings.
> They can't and shouldn't be ‘validated’, but we don't currently
> mandate their stringiness, and should.

Makes sense.

Thank you!

Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.