g....@free.fr wrote: ... >> To me, it looks like the *lack* of a line for the a/b mount >> is the problem. When you remove the symlink the mount command >> does not update the regular-file /etc/mtab, so mount-listing >> code cannot see that a/b is bind-mounted. >> > No, this is not a missing line but understanding that line content. > > To prove that, I started again with a new mtab, > - mounted a/b without writting to mtab > - copied to mtab a line content with a/b mounted exactly the same as > in /proc/mounts case, > - hash_lookup answer changed > . > [chroot-i486] root:/usr/src/coreutils-8.20$ rm -f /etc/mtab > [chroot-i486] root:/usr/src/coreutils-8.20$ grep '^\/dev.* / ' > /proc/mounts >/etc/mtab > [chroot-i486] root:/usr/src/coreutils-8.20$ mount -n --bind a a/b > [chroot-i486] root:/usr/src/coreutils-8.20$ echo > /dev/disk/by-uuid/7a235d64-5d04-41ac-a959-70465eb74fc8 > /usr/src/coreutils-8.20/a/b ext3 > rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,barrier=1,data=ordered 0 0' >>/etc/mtab > [chroot-i486] root:/usr/src/coreutils-8.20$ ./src/du a > ./src/du: mount point 'a/b' already traversed > 4 a
It sounds like you have confirmed my conclusion. When you use a symlink, /etc/mtab contains a line for the a/b mount and the mount-listing loop in fill_mount_table inserts an entry for a/b. Later, when we search that table for the inode of "a/b", we find that entry and know that it's a bind-mount, so issue only the minor warning, rather than the "DISK CORRUPTION" warning. With your regular mtab file, it contains no such a/b line, and the mount-listing loop in fill_mount_table inserts no entry for a/b. Later, when we search that table for a/b's inode, we find no entry and have to report the more serious error.
