Message-ID: <20151217032652.GD10582@birch.djwong.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:26:52 -0800
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@...fujitsu.com>,
	fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: Ideas on unified real-ro mount option across all filesystems

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 09:15:59PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> <xfs list address fixed>
> 
> On 12/16/15 7:41 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > In a recent btrfs patch, it is going to add a mount option to disable
> > log replay for btrfs, just like "norecovery" for ext4/xfs.
> > 
> > But in the discussion on the mount option name and use case, it seems
> > better to have an unified and fs independent mount option alias for
> > real RO mount
> > 
> > Reasons:
> > 1) Some file system may have already used [no]"recovery" mount option
> >    In fact, btrfs has already used "recovery" mount option.
> >    Using "norecovery" mount option will be quite confusing for btrfs.
> 
> Too bad btrfs picked those semantics when "norecovery" has existed on
> other filesystems for quite some time with a different meaning... :(
> 
> > 2) More straight forward mount option
> >    Currently, to get real RO mount, for ext4/xfs, user must use -o
> >    ro,norecovery.
> >    Just ro won't ensure real RO, and norecovery can't be used alone.
> >    If we have a simple alias, it would be much better for user to use.
> >    (it maybe done just in user space mount)
> 
> mount(8) simply says:
> 
>        ro     Mount the filesystem read-only.
> 
> and mount(2) is no more illustrative:
> 
>        MS_RDONLY
>               Mount file system read-only.
> 
> kernel code is no help, either:
> 
> #define MS_RDONLY        1      /* Mount read-only */
> 
> They say nothing about what, exactly, "read-only" means.  But since at least
> the early ext3 days, it means that you cannot write through the filesystem, not
> that the filesystem will leave the block device unmodified when it mounts.
> 
> I have always interpreted it as simply "no user changes to the filesystem,"
> and that is clearly what the vfs does with the flag...

That ("-o ro means no user changes") has always been my understanding too.  You
/want/ the FS to replay the journal on an RO mount so that regular FS operation
picks up the committed transactions.

--D

> 
> >    Not to mention some fs (yeah, btrfs again) doesn't have "norecovery"
> >    but "nologreplay".
> 
> well, again, btrfs picked unfortunate semantics, given the precedent set
> by other filesystems.
> 
> f2fs, ext4, gfs2, nilfs2, and xfs all support "norecovery" - xfs since
> forever, ext4 & f2fs since 2009, etc.
> 
> > 3) A lot of user even don't now mount ro can still modify device
> >    Yes, I didn't know this point until I checked the log replay code of
> >    btrfs.
> >    Adding such mount option alias may raise some attention of users.
> 
> 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.
> 
> If you want to be sure your block device rejects all IO for forensics or
> what have you, I'd suggest # blockdev --setro /dev/whatever prior to mount,
> and take it out of the filesystem's control.  Or better yet, making an
> image and not touching the original.
> 
> -Eric
> 
> > Any ideas about this?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists