linux-kernel - Re: XFS noikeep remount in 2.6.27-rc1-next-20080730

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <510965.21937.qm@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	gus3 <musicman529@...oo.com>
To:	Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Jasper Bryant-Greene <jasper@...ton.co.nz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: XFS noikeep remount in 2.6.27-rc1-next-20080730

--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:

> So what is the correct behaviour? Should the filesystem
> *silently
> ignore* unchangable options in the remount command, or
> should it
> fail the remount and warn the user that certain options are
> not
> allowed in remount?

How about a middle ground: ignore, but not silently? Report an error, or send it to the syslog, or both, but ultimately ignore unchangeable options, change what can be changed, and give the user/admin as much as possible.

This can be particularly pertinent for XFS root. If it's mounted RO at first, it may (will?) need to become RW at some later point. Failing the remount could result in a system that requires a rescue CD (or lots of headaches for remote administration).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/