Re: [PATCH 06/10] ovl: force read-only mount with no index dir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When workdir creation fails, overlay is mounted read-only and
>> remount,rw is not allowed. When index dir creation fails, overlay
>> is mounted readonly, but we also need to enforce no remount,rw in
>> that case.
>
> I don't understand the logic for ovl_show_options().  It should show
> the options supplied, right?  It doesn't currently do that for
> "index=FOO" but this patch doesn't help that, afaics.
>

I'll explain my reasoning for changing the logic of ovl_show_options(),
but in the end, I'm perfectly fine with leaving that function untouched
or with removing the != def_ condition altogether.

for the purpose of the test in ovl_force_readonly(), I wanted to preserve
the admin (or distro) choice for index configuration, so that the following
sequence will fail to remount rw in case index dir creation fails:

mount -t overlay d /m -oro,upperdir=/u,lowerdir=/l,workdlir=/w,index=on
mount /m -oremount,rw

So I removed the "/* Show index=off/on.." hunk which lost the index config.
This is different from the case of !ovl_can_decode_fh() which sets
config.index = false and warns "falling back to index=off.", because there
is no way for admin to ever fix  !ovl_can_decode_fh() failure.
In this case (failure to create indexdir), we preserve the config and warn
"failed ... mounting read-only; ... mount with '-o index=off' to disable.."
to let the admin maybe fix the reason for the failure later while letting
users read the data in the mean while without breaking hardlinks.

So far, I guess you agree with the change?

Then it left ovl_show_options() showing "ro,index=on" which is weird,
because indexing is not on, but showing "ro,index=off" (because of !indexdir)
would have been weird as well, because it leaves no apparent explanation
for the failure to remount rw.
So I opted for "on ro mount, the value of index is not interesting" to
reconcile this dilemma.

Really, I have no strong opinion on the matter, so feel free to change
ovl_show_options() in any way you like. I'll shout if I find your choice
confusing for any configuration.

Thanks,
Amir.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Devel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux