[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1P9Gh4-00054y-EA@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:25:58 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] vfs: protect remounting superblock read-only
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 12:31:15PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> >
> > Currently remouting superblock read-only is racy in a major way.
> >
> > With the per mount read-only infrastructure it is now possible to
> > prevent most races, which this patch attempts.
> >
> > Before starting the remount read-only, set MNT_WRITE_HOLD on all
> > mounts so that writes are held off until the remount either succeeds
> > or fails.
>
> Umm... What'll happen if your remount will say mnt_want_write() on
> e.g. internal vfsmount over that sb?
Quickly looking through filesystems I didn't find this sort of usage.
> Or, more subtle, tries to
> update atime on some opened struct file on that sb.
Hmm, load_nls() will apparently do that. Drat.
Plan B: remount all vfsmounts read-only before ->remount_fs() but
remember which ones were read-write and restore on failure. Will
result in ugly transient write failures if remount_fs() fails, but I
don't think anybody would care in practice.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists