Re: Proposal: a consistent mount interface

Robert Loomans (
Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:38:41 +1100 (EST)

On 27 Nov 1996, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

> In, article <>,
> Maciej Stachowiak <> writes:
> >
> [ 2. Have a different mount program for each remote file system ]
> > However, the second solution does have some advantages. Here they are,
> > along with my objections to them. First, it allows arbitrary
> > interesting things to be done in user space at mount time. However,
> There are cases where this won't work. For instance, let's say my superFS
> mount call requires some public-key authorization, using my personal
> authentication daemon on my secure machine (look at ssh).

Another example is where you need to supply passwords to mount the
filesystem (ncpfs, smbfs). You don't want them in the fstab. I know you
could make it unreadable by anyone except root. But it would be preferable
to keep it elsewhere.


Robert Loomans                    Phone: +61-2-385-3452    Fax:   +61-2-385-3430

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed here are entirely my own and in no way the responsiblility of my employer, the University of New South Wales.