On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:34:29AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote: > > Okay, so it is used. (Due to the macro, it didn't show up when grepping.) > > > > Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a ro_compat inode flag if the whole filesystem > > is marked with a ro_compat feature flag, though? I thought that the point of > > the ro_compat inode flag is to allow old kernels to mount the filesystem > > read-write, with only verity files being forced to read-only. That would be > > more flexible than ext4's implementation of fs-verity which forces the whole > > filesystem to read-only. But it seems you're forcing the whole filesystem to > > read-only anyway? > > > > - Eric > > I was thinking of it in terms of "RO compat is the goal" and having new > inode flags totally broke that and was treated as a corruption of the > inode regardless of the fs being ro/rw. I think a check on a live fs > would just flip the fs ro, which was the goal anyway, but a check that > happened during mount would fail the mount, even for a read-only fs. > > Making it fully per file would be pretty cool! The only thing > really missing as far as I can tell is a way to mark a file read only > with the same semantics fsverity uses from within btrfs. I don't understand. Why are you bothering with the ro_compat inode flag at all if it doesn't actually work? - Eric
|