From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: Limit on return string from program map Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:28:16 -0500 Message-ID: <16835.5936.56572.109035@segfault.boston.redhat.com> References: <21502.1103178424@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> <16834.63746.614567.523947@segfault.boston.redhat.com> Reply-To: jmoyer@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16834.63746.614567.523947@segfault.boston.redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Ian Kent , autofs@linux.kernel.org, Keith Owens ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] Limit on return string from program map; Jeff Moyer adds: ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] Limit on return string from program map; Ian Kent adds: raven> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Keith Owens wrote: >>> Kernel 2.6.9, autofs v4 as a module, autofs-4.1.3-28 (FC3). I added >>> "/net /etc/auto.net" to /etc/auto.master and it works fine, up to a >>> point. ps shows >>> >>> /usr/sbin/automount --timeout=60 /net program /etc/auto.net >>> >>> If the target server has a lot of mounted filesystems then automount >>> will only mount the first few entries on the list. Then it tries to >>> run mount with invalid input. It looks like there is a hard coded >>> limit on the string that automount expects from a program map. My >>> virtual CD server has lots of CD images mounted over loopback, each >>> with its own export entry, so the return string from auto.net is quite >>> long. raven> The buffer size for map entries is 4096. jmoyer> I think I posted a patch here that would extend that? I can't seem jmoyer> to find it in the archives, so I'll repost. This is the version of jmoyer> the patch that is in our tree, so no guarantees about it applying jmoyer> to Ian's tree. *sigh* (patch originally done by from Neil Horman) jmoyer> Ian, when is 4.1.4 coming out. ;-) Bah, and it was just pointed out to me that this patch adds a bug. I'll repost the patch when the bug is fixed. (see red hat bz #138994). No ETA just yet. -Jeff