[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140620131328.GA31693@frolo.macqel>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:13:28 +0200
From: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@...qel.be>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/do_mounts.c: treat EROFS like EACCES
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 09:09:24AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:19:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:12:44 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <phdm@...qel.be> wrote:
> >
> > > some combinations of filesystem and block device (at least vfat on mmc)
> > > yield -EROFS instead of -EACCES when the device is read-only. Retry
> > > mounting with MS_RDONLY set, just like for the EACCES case, instead of
> > > failing directly.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/init/do_mounts.c
> > > +++ b/init/do_mounts.c
> > > @@ -394,6 +394,7 @@ retry:
> > > case 0:
> > > goto out;
> > > case -EACCES:
> > > + case -EROFS:
> > > flags |= MS_RDONLY;
> > > goto retry;
> > > case -EINVAL:
> >
> > hm, what's going on here. I'd have thought it to be very logical that
> > file_system_type.mount() would return EROFS if the device is read-only!
> > But I'm suspecting that there is some convention that the fs is
> > supposed to return EACCES in this case. So *perhaps* it is vfat-on-mmc
> > which needs fixing. Dunno.
> >
> > Al, are you able to shed light?
>
> from the mount(2) man page:
>
> EACCES A component of a path was not searchable. (See also
> path_resolution(7).) Or, mounting a read-only filesystem
> was attempted without giving the MS_RDONLY flag. Or, the
> block device source is located on a filesystem mounted with
> the MS_NODEV option.
>
> So, when the device is read-only, the error should EACCES, not
> EROFS. Would seem to me that vfat-on-mmc needs fixing...
Looking at the sources of mount(1)
https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/blob/master/sys-utils/mount.c
at line 601, we clearly see that mount(1) allows mount(2) to fail
with EROFS.
We could as well fix the man page of mount(2)
Philippe
--
Philippe De Muyter +32 2 6101532 Macq SA rue de l'Aeronef 2 B-1140 Bruxelles
--
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