GNU bug report logs - #70542
[PATCH 0/4] Improve Shepherd service support for networked file systems

Previous Next

Full log

Message #41 received at 70542 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Sent <richard <at> freakingpenguin.com>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 70542 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] file-systems: Add support for mounting CIFS file
 systems
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:19:34 -0400

> I'm rarely that deep in our interaction with file systems

Haha, join the club!

> do we go through mount or do directly talk to the kernel driver? If we
> do mount.cifs under the hood, this should not be an issue. Otherwise,
> we should do our best to document this behaviour.

mount-file-system uses the mount system call under the hood, no
userspace tooling as far as I can tell. See mount in (guix build
syscalls). Unfortunately this means we need to replicate the userspace
mount.cifs program's behavior for handling the guest option.

This would definitely be easier (and probably compatible with more file
systems) if we used the standard userspace tools, but I don't think
there's a good way to do that at present.

My hope is that if we match mount.cifs's behavior in how we handle the
guest option (adding user=,pass=), we won't need extra documentation
explaining CIFS file system options. Users would just follow
mount.cifs's documentation (which is probably what they'd find first).
To my knowledge the patch's current behavior w.r.t. guest matches
mount.cifs.

If we were to implement our own divergent behavior from mount.cifs, then
we would need to document that divergence. But I don't think we need to
document that our behavior matches the mount.cifs program's behavior.

(Or, if we do, it should probably be a more general statement like "File
system options are passed to the mount system call, with slight
adjustments to match the userspace mount.<type> equivalent program's
behavior." Something akin to that, but it's not specifically a CIFS
thing.)

> I assume that specifying neither user nor guest would result in an
> error, but you're welcome to discover bugs^Wfresh new features.

I think I'd be content with calling that "user error". If mount.cifs
doesn't do anything special, neither should we. ;)

-- 
Take it easy,
Richard Sent
Making my computer weirder one commit at a time.

Previous Next

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