Mount Options.

[Andrey Borzenkov]

On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:01, Daniel W. Cote wrote:
> I like what HAL is doing as far as not having to worry about what the
> device name is for a USB device. What I don't like is not being allowed
> to decide what mount options I can use. The decision should be up to the
> Adminstrator. The idea that no one wants to execute programs on a usb
> device is wrong. I have 2 USB devices which I bought with the intention
> of loading programs on it that I can run on any of my systems. I had to
> make changes to the hal-system-storage-mount script to allow me to mount
> with the exec option and well as adding exec to the Hal-System-Manager
> valid mount options.

Add fdi to set volume.mount.valid_options to your liking.

Supply those options from your client.

{pts/0}% sudo mount -o loop,noexec,exec,nosuid,suid,nodev,dev tmp/foo 
tmp/foo.mnt 
{pts/0}% grep foo /proc/mounts
/dev/loop0 /home/bor/tmp/foo.mnt ext2 rw,nogrpid 0 0


> The other problem I had was I have a 80Gig USB drive with an ext3 file
> system on it. Hal tried to mount it as vfat. I again had to make
> overides in the Hal-System-Manager to tell Hal the drive is ext3. This
> should be automatic.
>

This looks like a bug in fstype detection. More details is needed. For a 
start, HAL version is nice. Also recompiling hal with debugging and running 
it with HALD_VERBOSE may show where it get it wrong.

-andrey