Bug 119515 - Submount does not support 'unhide' mount option for cdroms
Summary: Submount does not support 'unhide' mount option for cdroms
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: SUSE LINUX 10.0
Classification: openSUSE
Component: Basesystem (show other bugs)
Version: Beta 1
Hardware: Other All
: P5 - None : Normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dr. Werner Fink
QA Contact: E-mail List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-29 19:54 UTC by James Helferty
Modified: 2005-09-30 09:33 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Found By: Other
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description James Helferty 2005-09-29 19:54:15 UTC
I am attempting to specify "unhide" to subfs so it can be passed to iso9660. 
This is a requirement for copy protection to work for some titles in Cedega.

I started off by adding the unhide option as one would normally do so in
/etc/fstab, which didn't work.

Since HAL purports to support the various mount options through
storage.policy.mount_options.*, I attempted to add the following as
mountpoints.fdi in /usr/share/hal/fdi/95userpolicy as a workaround:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> <!-- -*- SGML -*- -->
<deviceinfo version="0.2">
    <device>
        <!-- optical drives -->
        <match key="block.device" string="/dev/hdc">
          <match key="volume.is_disc" bool="true">
            <merge key="storage.policy.mount_option.unhide" type="bool">true</merge>
          </match>
        </match>
    </device>
</deviceinfo>

This also didn't work.

I did a little digging in 9.3, since the source for 10 isn't yet on the FTP
sites.  From what I can tell, when subfs is enabled, all cdrom mounting is
handled by /etc/hal/device.d/90-block-subfs.hal.  Looking at the source for this
binary, it appears that the options passed to the mount command are hardcoded
depending on the media type.
Comment 1 James Helferty 2005-09-29 20:05:41 UTC
I should have said that I added that userpolicy file in my excursions in 9.3,
not 10.  (Kind of obvious since the directory doesn't exist. :)
Comment 2 James Helferty 2005-09-29 20:09:45 UTC
Actually, strike that, it's a 9.3 bug only.  Sigh..
Comment 3 Dr. Werner Fink 2005-09-30 09:33:00 UTC
>
> Actually, strike that, it's a 9.3 bug only.  Sigh..
>