[BusyBox] Re: [BusyBox-cvs] svn commit: trunk/busybox: include networking

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Thu Jul 28 19:27:10 UTC 2005


On Thursday 28 July 2005 13:12, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 12:52:25PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Why does such check exist at all? It seems pretty broken to me. Imagine
> > > you want to do 'mount -t jffs2 mtd1 /mnt' while in /dev directory.
> > > Device name gets expanded to /dev/mtd1, which is character device and
> > > mount will fail.
> >
> > *blinks*
> >
> > Ok, so what did you _expect_ to happen?
>
> I'd expect mtd1 passed to mount (2), of course. Again, why are you ever
> trying to 'normalize' device name??

First of all I'm not, the existing code has been doing that for a long time.

Secondly, there's a number of reasons.  Off the top of my head, you can't have 
a relative path in /etc/mtab, things like the loop device ioctl want an 
absolute path, and it should never _hurt_ and is generally cleaner to give an 
absolute path to mount.

Again, how did the behavior you got differ from what you expected?  Mount 
operates on device files, not on magic names.  If you specify a relative path 
and a program turns that into an absolute path by taking the current working 
directory into account (correctly removing ./ and ../ and // and so on) then 
where's the harm?  How does passing a relative path or an absolute path to 
the same file differ in behavior?  (Are you saying we're turning it into the 
WRONG absolute path?)

>  ladis

Rob



More information about the busybox mailing list