On Fri 06-09-13 09:11:18, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > udf/isofs changes to refuse mounting fs rw instead of mounting it > > ro automatically which makes eject button work as expected for all media (see > > the changelog for why userspace should be ok with this change). > > Pulled. However, these are kind of odd. > > For trying _remount_ something read-only, isofs returns the logical > EROFS error code. > > But for trying to mount it in the first place, it returns EACCES, > which sounds insane. It's not a permission problem - no amount of > permissions will ever make it work. > > UDF always does EACCES, regardless of mount/remount. > > Is there some fundamental reason for the insane error code? Does user > space do the wrong thing if we were to just always return "EROFS" > which makes much more sense? So I personally like EROFS more as well. However blkdev_get_by_path() (which is what mount(2) uses) returns EACCES if the device is read-only and FMODE_WRITE was requested. Also the manpage for mount(2) talks about EACCES when RW mount of read-only device was requested and doesn't mention EROFS at all. Now mount(8) handles both EROFS and EACCES the same way but I wanted to stay on the safer side in case someone uses mount(2) directly so I used more common EACCES. I can create a separate patch changing all EACCES return values in this area to EROFS but I'm not sure it is worth the possible hassle with userspace... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
