Juergen Sauer posted on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:16:33 +0100 as excerpted: > I think this is an Bug in btrfs send, not to check if an btrfs > filesystem is mounted ro for refusing working. > > It may be much more easier to recover damaged systems, if such annoying > thngs would not occour.
That has been noted before, and is indeed considered a bug. The problem is that in normal circumstances, a read-only mount wasn't considered secure enough, because the user could make it writable while the send was underway, causing the send to fail. But at minimum, there needs to be a way to do a send from a forced-read- only filesystem, you are correct, thus the bug. I don't know whether they plan to relax the requirement and live with the chance of a user making it writable (admin responsibility, admin breaks the send, admin gets to keep the pieces), or if they plan to add an attribute to force-read-only so it can be distinguished from user-mounted- read-only, in which case forced-read-only could be considered sufficient for a send. But indeed, the current situation is acknowledged to be "less than ideal" by the devs, which will probably do something about it at some point, based on comments. I don't know how soon that "some point" might be, however... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
