On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:20:58 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <p...@macqel.be> wrote:
>
> > Currently, the initial mount of the root file system by the linux
> > kernel fails with a cryptic message instead of being retried with
> > the MS_RDONLY flag set, when the device is read-only and the
> > combination of block driver and filesystem driver yields EROFS.
> >
> > I do not know if POSIX mandates that mount(2) must fail with EACCES, nor
> > if linux aims to strict compliance with POSIX on that point. Consensus
> > amongst the messages that I have read so far seems to show that linux
> > kernel hackers feel that EROFS is a more appropriate error code than
> > EACCES in that case.
>
> Isn't the core problem that "the combination of block driver and
> filesystem driver yields EROFS"? That the fs should instead be
> returning EACCESS in this case?
Does POSIX or Linux mandate that it should ?
>
> What fs and block driver are we talking about here, anyway?
The problem happened to me with a f2fs filesystem on a sd-card that was
accidentally write-protected and that was put in a SD-card slot (mmc block
driver).
I retested using mount(8) with a similar now intentionnaly write-protected
sd card in a usb reader (usb_storage driver ?) with vfat, f2fs and ext4
filesystems with the following results :
mywdesk:~ # strace -e mount mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt
mount("/dev/sdb1", "/mnt", "vfat", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) = -1 EROFS (Read-only
file system)
mount: /dev/sdb1 is write-protected, mounting read-only
mount("/dev/sdb1", "/mnt", "vfat", MS_MGC_VAL|MS_RDONLY, NULL) = 0
+++ exited with 0 +++
mywdesk:~ # umount /mnt
mywdesk:~ # strace -e mount mount -t f2fs /dev/sdb2 /mnt
mount("/dev/sdb2", "/mnt", "f2fs", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) = -1 EROFS (Read-only
file system)
mount: /dev/sdb2 is write-protected, mounting read-only
mount("/dev/sdb2", "/mnt", "f2fs", MS_MGC_VAL|MS_RDONLY, NULL) = 0
+++ exited with 0 +++
mywdesk:~ # umount /mnt
mywdesk:~ # strace -e mount mount /dev/sdb3 /mnt
mount("/dev/sdb3", "/mnt", "ext4", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) = -1 EROFS (Read-only
file system)
mount: /dev/sdb3 is write-protected, mounting read-only
mount("/dev/sdb3", "/mnt", "ext4", MS_MGC_VAL|MS_RDONLY, NULL) = 0
+++ exited with 0 +++
mywdesk:~ #
All three file-systems (vfat, f2fs & ext4) yield EROFS.
I also quickly grepped for occurences of EROFS under fs/, and found no check
to replace EROFS by EACCES,
while the same grep under drivers/{block,cdrom,ide,md,memstick, mtd,
s390/block,scsi,usb} gives plenty of "return -EROFS;"
So, if no filesystem driver replaces EROFS by EACCES and many block drivers
return EROFS, it seems to me that many combinations will yield EROFS.
> >
> > So, do you choose for my first pragmatic and non-intrusive patch, that
> > lets mount_block_root() retry with MS_RDONLY if the file system
> > returns EROFS (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/18/468) or for the second
> > one that forces all file-systems to return EACCES instead of EROFS.
> > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/20/98).
>
> They both seem a little hacky to me.
Actually I prefer my first patch, which simply adapts the kernel to the current
situation, like mount(8) already does, instead of trying to impose an ABI
change.
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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
