Question about mount

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Wed Mar 29 15:59:44 UTC 2006


On Wednesday 29 March 2006 2:36 am, Alexander Griesser wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> >>>> [lxtc3861 - ~ #] mount /
> >>>> mount: Mounting /dev/hda1 on /system failed: No such device
> >>>> [lxtc3861 - ~ #]
> >>>
> >>> Out of morbid curiosity, how did you get here without / already
> >>> mounted?
> >>
> >> / is mounted, but it is mounted readonly.
> >> In my init-scripts I then try to mount it readwrite.
> >
> > Ok.  In theory, that should work.  Do you have /proc mounted yet when you
> > try to do this?  (That's how I tested.  If it doesn't work when /proc
> > isn't mounted, that's a bug I need to fix.)
>
> It it doesn't work when /proc is _NOT_ mounted, you need to fix it?
> I thought, /proc needs to be mounted to work with /proc/mounts?

It does, but maybe you should be able to remount without /proc?  (It'll lose 
existing flags, but maybe it should fall through and try to do it with just 
the flags you supplied, which should give us a clean failure from the kernel 
if it's not mounted.  The specific case of "mount -o remount,rw /" in a 
recovery situation is what I'm thinking of here.)

> The order of my bootscripts looks like this:
>
> [lxtc3861 - /etc/rcS.d #] ls -1 | head -3
> S00mountsysdrive
> S01mountvirtfs
> S02mountfs
> [lxtc3861 - /etc/rcS.d #]
>
> Where S00 does `mount /system`, S01 mounts /proc, /sys, /proc/bus/usb,
> /dev/pts and /var/tmp and S02 does `mount -o remount,rw /dev/root /`.
>
> So, /proc is definetly mounted before I try to mount /.

Huh.

> So, BTDT. The result is the same as above with the latest daily
> snapshot. It only works when it gets both parameters.

That's odd.  I'm trying to figure out how I can reproduce this...

> > For remount, it's using that as an arbitry identifier name.  Notice that
> > you can "remount -o remount,rw harvey-the-wonder-hamster /", and that you
> > can do that with the current mount command, not just mine. :)
>
> Ah, cool, I didn't know that -> quite funny.
>
> Sorry again for bringing in some trouble with this thread, as I forgot
> to CC some items immediately to the list :-/

I'm more interested in finding and reproducing the technical issue.  Unlikely 
to have time to extensively poke at it until this weekend, though...

> ciao,

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list