Re: Ideas on unified real-ro mount option across all filesystems

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

On 12/17/15 8:01 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 09:29 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> And thanks for the info provided by Karel, it's clear that at least 
>> mount(8) itself already has explain on what ro will do and what it
>> won't do.
> 
> I wouldn't really agree, here. At least not from the non-developer side
> (and one should hope filesystems and their manpages aren't only made
> for fs-devlopers).
> 
> The manpage says:
>> ro     Mount the filesystem read-only.
>> rw     Mount the filesystem read-write.
> 
> IMHO, that leaves absolutely unclear, what this actually means,
> especially given that most end-users will probably consider the
> filesystem and its device being basically "the same".

<lots of words snipped>

Karel pointed out that recent mount(8) says:

>    -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.

which should leave nothing to the imagination.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs