loop devices removable

loop devices removable

[Pablo Barbachano]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii, Size: 652 bytes --]

Hi, I would like to know where do I need to look to make the loop
devices removable. The effect I want is to make
/sys/block/loop*/removable have a value of 1.

I have been grepping for a while in the kernel sources but found
nothing.

The (probably broken) reason I want to do that is so I can use (my
modified) pmount to mount them.

(And now I run behind a rock before someone tells me how broken is
that)

Cheers,
Pablo

-- 
"When in doubt, use brute force" -- Ken Thompson

		
______________________________________________ 
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 
http://es.voice.yahoo.com

Re: loop devices removable

[Bodo Eggert]

Pablo Barbachano <pablobarbachano@yahoo.es> wrote:

[loop devices]

> The (probably broken) reason I want to do that is so I can use (my
> modified) pmount to mount them.

I'm wondering if fuse would be suited better. I did not yet experiment
with that, but it seems it has everything you need.
-- 
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.

http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html

Re: loop devices removable

[Pablo Barbáchano]

 --- Bodo Eggert <7eggert@elstempel.de> escribió:

> Pablo Barbachano <pablobarbachano@yahoo.es> wrote:
> 
> [loop devices]
> 
> > The (probably broken) reason I want to do that is so I can use (my
> > modified) pmount to mount them.
> 
> I'm wondering if fuse would be suited better. I did not yet experiment
> with that, but it seems it has everything you need.

There is something based on FUSE:
http://lwn.net/Articles/173617/

Which involves UML... doesn't seem a good option to me...

My approach is simpler:
1. Change pmount so it supports loopback devices
2. Change the /dev/loop* group permissions.

You can accomplish 2 by modifying udev rules, the kernel or chgrp directly.
I just wondered if the kernel how the kernel could be changed and why it wouldn't be a good idea.

Cheers,
Pablo

> -- 
> Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
> verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.
> 
> http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 


__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
Regístrate ya - http://correo.yahoo.es 

Re: loop devices removable

[Bodo Eggert]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Pablo Barbáchano wrote:
>  --- Bodo Eggert <7eggert@elstempel.de> escribió:
> > Pablo Barbachano <pablobarbachano@yahoo.es> wrote:

> > [loop devices]
> > 
> > > The (probably broken) reason I want to do that is so I can use (my
> > > modified) pmount to mount them.
> > 
> > I'm wondering if fuse would be suited better. I did not yet experiment
> > with that, but it seems it has everything you need.
> 
> There is something based on FUSE:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/173617/
> 
> Which involves UML... doesn't seem a good option to me...

I just tried it out, and fuse/uml seems it works out-of-the-box (using a
simple mount-like command) while preventing the user from crashing the
kernel "using" a corrupt fs image. If you rename the mountlo program to 
"mount" and put it un the user's path, they won't notice they're using 
fuse at all, except for not honoring fstab. (Off cause /sbin must come 
before /usr/local/bin in root's path!)

-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
39. It is only a minor upgrade, the system should be back up in
    a few hours.  ( This is said on a monday afternoon.)