On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 07:52, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Btw, I did want to ask about (5): Does a superblock being marked SB_RDONLY
> imply immutability to the application?
Obviously not - any network filesystem can and will change from under
you, even if the local copy is read-only.
So SB_RDONLY can only mean that writes to that instance of the
filesystem will fail.
It's a bit stronger than MNT_READONLY, in that for a *local*
filesystem, SB_RDONLY tends to mean that it's truly immutable (while
MNT_READONLY is obviously per mount) but even then some sub-mount
thing (and I guess the AFS snapshot is a good example of that) might
expose the same filesystem through multiple superblocks.
Exactly like a network filesystem inevitably will.
In any case, any user space that thinks SB_RDONLY is some kind of
immutability signal is clearly buggy. At a minimum, such user space
would have to limit itself to particular filesystem types and say "I
know _this_ filesystem can have only one superblock"). And I'd argue
that while that might work in practice, it's insane.
Linus
