From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] push MS_RDONLY check from ->write_super into caller
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:33:34 +0100
Message-ID: <20090506223334.GY8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20090506201605.GA19043@lst.de> <20090506221912.GX8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39693 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752975AbZEFWde (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 May 2009 18:33:34 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090506221912.GX8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:19:12PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:16:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Add a central MS_RDONLY to sync_super instead of having it in the ->write_super
> > methods (and even that not consistently).  The other two callers are already
> > protected:  sync_filesystems has the same s_umount protected MS_RDONLY check
> > and file_fsync can only be called on a writeable file descriptor.
> > 
> > Also make sure to clear s_dirt if it was set on a read-only superblock to
> > avoid calling into these filesystems again and again.
> 
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/affs/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/bfs/inode.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/ext2/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/fat/inode.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/hfs/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/hfsplus/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/jffs2/fs.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/jffs2/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/nilfs2/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/super.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/sysv/inode.c
> > Index: vfs-2.6/fs/ufs/super.c
> 
> You've missed xfs.  Added and applied (reiserfs, ext4 and exofs are also
> not touched, but they don't need a change here).

Eh...  Actually, this is wrong as described.  ->fsync() *can* be called
for file opened r/o.  Moreover, fs might decide to go r/o on its own.
file_fsync() is not widely used, but users include affs, bfs, fat, hfs,
hfsplus and ufs.  No go, at least as long as file_fsync() is used for
those.

Patch dropped until we decide what to do with those.  It shouldn't be
all that hard to push file_fsync() out of existence, so it might be
doable, but...