Re: Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only

[Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1528 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:48:39PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-12-02 11:54, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >On 12/2/15 3:23 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/12/02 17:06 +0800:
> >>>Russell Coker wrote on 2015/12/02 17:25 +1100:
> >>>>On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 06:05:09 AM Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>>>>yes, xfs does; we have "-o norecovery" if you don't want that, or need
> >>>>>to mount a filesystem with a dirty log on a readonly device.
> >>>>
> >>>>That option also works with Ext3/4 so it seems to be a standard way of
> >>>>dealing
> >>>>with this.  I think that BTRFS should do what Ext3/4 and XFS do in this
> >>>>regard.
[snip]
> >so if you'd like btrfs to be consistent with these, I would not make
> >norecovery imply ro; rather, make I would make it require an explicit ro, i.e.
> >
> >mount -o ro,norecovery
> Agreed, with something like that, it should as blatantly obvious as
> possible that you can't write to the FS.
> 
> On a side note, do either XFS or ext4 support removing the
> norecovery option from the mount flags through mount -o remount?
> Even if they don't, that might be a nice feature to have in BTRFS if
> we can safely support it.

   One minor awkwardness with "norecovery", I've just realised: we
already have a "recovery" mount option. That's going to make things
really confusing if we stick to that name.

   Hugo.

-- 
Hugo Mills             | Reintarnation: Coming back from the dead as a
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | hillbilly
http://carfax.org.uk/  |
PGP: E2AB1DE4          |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]