Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932226AbXAIQkK (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:40:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932230AbXAIQkK (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:40:10 -0500 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:40760 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932226AbXAIQkH (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:40:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation From: Trond Myklebust To: Jan Kara Cc: Erez Zadok , Andrew Morton , "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, torvalds@osdl.org, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, David Quigley In-Reply-To: <20070109122644.GB1260@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20070108111852.ee156a90.akpm@osdl.org> <200701082051.l08KpV8b011212@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20070109122644.GB1260@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:39:38 -0500 Message-Id: <1168360778.6054.26.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=12.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5) X-UiO-Scanned: B86ADEB2AC86ED95E454111815EB93F2A7184130 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: 69.241.229.183 spam_score -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1203 Lines: 24 On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 13:26 +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Yes, making fs readonly at VFS level would not work for already opened > files. But you if you create new union, you could lock down the > filesystems you are unioning (via s_umount semaphore), go through lists > of all open fd's on those filesystems and check whether they are open > for write or not. If some fd is open for writing, you simply fail to > create the union (and it's upto user to solve the problem). Otherwise > you mark filesystems as RO and safely proceed with creating the union. > I guess you must have come up with this solution. So what is the problem > with it? Aside from the fact that this is racy (s_umount doesn't protect you against a process opening a new file while you are busy running through the open fds to see if you can reset the MS_RDONLY flag) all you will have achieved is ensure that your client won't write to the file. You will still be able to Oops. Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/