On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 09:15:59PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I have always interpreted it as simply "no user changes to the filesystem,"
> and that is clearly what the vfs does with the flag...
Yep,
> Given that nothing in the documentation implies that the block device itself
> must remain unchanged on a read-only mount, I don't see any problem which
> needs fixing. MS_RDONLY rejects user IO; that's all.
I agree, it's FS specific business to interpret the 'ro'.
And it's already enough complicated, we have three levels of "read-only":
- read-only device (blockdev --setro ioctl)
- read-only filesystem (mount -o ro)
- read-only VFS node (mount -o remount,ro,bind /src /dst)
and for example in /proc/self/mountinfo we distinguish between FS "ro"
and VFS "ro" flag:
# grep test /proc/self/mountinfo
185 59 8:5 / /mnt/test ro,relatime shared:32 - ext4 /dev/sda5 rw,data=ordered
^^ ^^
BTW, util-linux 2.27 mount(8) man page:
-r, --read-only
Mount the filesystem read-only. A synonym is -o ro.
Note that, depending on the filesystem type, state and
kernel behavior, the system may still write to the device. For
example, ext3 and ext4 will replay the journal if the
filesystem is dirty. To prevent this kind of write access, you
may want to mount an ext3 or ext4 filesystem with the ro,noload
mount options or set the block device itself to read-only
mode, see the blockdev(8) command.
(maybe we need to copy this note to "ro" description too and add hint
about btrfs too :-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
