[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] dm: Do not open log and cow device read-write for read-only mappings
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>, Jens Axboe <axboe kernel dk>, Tao Ma <tm tao ma>, linux-kernel vger kernel org
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] dm: Do not open log and cow device read-write for read-only mappings
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:20:33 +0100
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:46:29PM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> > fd = open(device, O_RDWR | flags);
> > if (fd == -1 && errno == EROFS) {
> > *readonly = 1;
> > fd = open(device, O_RDONLY | flags);
> > }
>
> Would it be reasonable for your patch to return EROFS rather than
> EACCES?
>
> man 2 open:
> int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode);
>
> EROFS pathname refers to a file on a read-only file system and write
> access was requested.
>
> EACCES The requested access to the file is not allowed, or search per‐
> mission is denied for one of the directories in the path prefix
> of pathname, or the file did not exist yet and write access to
> the parent directory is not allowed. (See also path_resolu‐
> tion(7).)
Hmmm... but -EACCES is the correct one here. The device node itself
is rejecting RW access. There's no FS which is enforcing RO. But if
the userland is already expecting that, dm can simply change the error
code, no?
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]