Hello.
Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
results in EROFS instead of ENOENT. I'd expect
it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
in my opinion.
For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
this case.
Thanks!
/mjt
29.05.2011 20:08, Michael Tokarev пишет:
> Hello.
>
> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT. I'd expect
> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
> in my opinion.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html
this case is quite clear:
[EROFS]
The directory entry to be unlinked
is part of a read-only file system
Ie, the entry is a _part_ of a file system, so it should be
_existing_ entry to start with.
> For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
> this case.
>
> Thanks!
/mjt
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:08:55PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT. I'd expect
> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
> in my opinion.
>
> For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
> this case.
Um, it doesn't for me. Testing on v3.0-rc1:
# ls /test/foo; rm /test/foo
ls: cannot access /test/foo: No such file or directory
rm: cannot remove `/test/foo': No such file or directory
# ls /test/null; rm /test/null
/test/null
rm: cannot remove `/test/null': Read-only file system
# grep test /proc/mounts
/dev/vdb /test ext4 ro,relatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered 0 0
- Ted
Thank you for the answer. I thought noone will reply... ;)
06.06.2011 07:39, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:08:55PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
>> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
>> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT. I'd expect
>> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
>> in my opinion.
>>
>> For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
>> this case.
>
> Um, it doesn't for me. Testing on v3.0-rc1:
>
> # ls /test/foo; rm /test/foo
> ls: cannot access /test/foo: No such file or directory
> rm: cannot remove `/test/foo': No such file or directory
This is a hack in coreutils rm to work around this
kernel change. The comment at
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/remove.c#n450
says:
/* The unlinkat from kernels like linux-2.6.32 reports EROFS even for
nonexistent files. When the file is indeed missing, map that to ENOENT,
so that rm -f ignores it, as required. Even without -f, this is useful
because it makes rm print the more precise diagnostic. */
so that rm(1) calls stat(2) to see if the file actually
exist if unlinkat() returned EROFS, and turns this errno
into ENOENT.
That is, rm(1) output is not a good indicator. Use
strace rm -f /test/foo 2>&1 | grep unlink
to see the actual errno reported by the kernel.
Here's the POSIX description of unlink (and unlinkat) again:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html
Thanks!
/mjt
06.06.2011 21:13, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Thank you for the answer. I thought noone will reply... ;)
>
> 06.06.2011 07:39, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:08:55PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
>>> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
>>> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT. I'd expect
>>> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
>>> in my opinion.
>>>
>>> For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
>>> this case.
>>
>> Um, it doesn't for me. Testing on v3.0-rc1:
>>
>> # ls /test/foo; rm /test/foo
>> ls: cannot access /test/foo: No such file or directory
>> rm: cannot remove `/test/foo': No such file or directory
>
> This is a hack in coreutils rm to work around this
> kernel change. The comment at
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/remove.c#n450
> says:
>
> /* The unlinkat from kernels like linux-2.6.32 reports EROFS even for
> nonexistent files. When the file is indeed missing, map that to ENOENT,
> so that rm -f ignores it, as required. Even without -f, this is useful
> because it makes rm print the more precise diagnostic. */
>
> so that rm(1) calls stat(2) to see if the file actually
> exist if unlinkat() returned EROFS, and turns this errno
> into ENOENT.
And another followup to this, -- the original case when I actually
noticed the problem. A readonly-mounted root filesystem with /etc
in git (the repository is in /var, symlinked from /etc/.git). I
deleted a few files from /etc (when it was readwrite), and noticed
that I forgot to commit the change. So I used `git rm oldfiles' and
voila, git, for the first time, refused to commit stuff for me in
this configuration, -- before, I was always able to _commit_ the
changes even if the working tree is read-only. It works for
everything but not for unlinks.
> That is, rm(1) output is not a good indicator. Use
>
> strace rm -f /test/foo 2>&1 | grep unlink
>
> to see the actual errno reported by the kernel.
>
> Here's the POSIX description of unlink (and unlinkat) again:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html
>
> Thanks!
>
> /mjt
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:13:23PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Thank you for the answer. I thought noone will reply... ;)
>
> >> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
> >> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
> >> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT. I'd expect
> >> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
> >> in my opinion.
> /* The unlinkat from kernels like linux-2.6.32 reports EROFS even for
> nonexistent files. When the file is indeed missing, map that to ENOENT,
> so that rm -f ignores it, as required. Even without -f, this is useful
> because it makes rm print the more precise diagnostic. */
OK, I see what's going on. This check is in the VFS layer, so it
affects all filesystems; it's not an ext4-specific thing.
Patch coming shortly.
- Ted
If user space attempts to unlink a non-existent file, and the file
system is mounted read-only, return ENOENT instead of EROFS. Either
error code is arguably valid/correct, but ENOENT is a more specific
error message.
Reported-by: Michael Tokarev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]>
---
fs/namei.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index 1ab641f..a9edbe0 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -2708,9 +2708,9 @@ static long do_unlinkat(int dfd, const char __user *pathname)
error = PTR_ERR(dentry);
if (!IS_ERR(dentry)) {
/* Why not before? Because we want correct error value */
- if (nd.last.name[nd.last.len])
- goto slashes;
inode = dentry->d_inode;
+ if (nd.last.name[nd.last.len] || !inode)
+ goto slashes;
if (inode)
ihold(inode);
error = mnt_want_write(nd.path.mnt);
--
1.7.4.1.22.gec8e1.dirty