Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:60092 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750820AbdALVSc (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:18:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:18:31 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Kinglong Mee , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSD: only support readonly export for !fsync and readonly filesystem Message-ID: <20170112211831.GG10501@fieldses.org> References: <960d206f-3cb5-b60e-5245-d7282dabf664@gmail.com> <20170108100715.GC25268@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170108100715.GC25268@infradead.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:07:15AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 09:18:08PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote: > > Commit fae5096ad217 > > "nfsd: assume writeable exportabled filesystems have f_sync" > > have remove the checking of f_sync. > > > > Christoph Hellwig suggests, > > "Warn and refuse the writable export." > > > > I think just covert to a readonly export for !fsync filesystem, > > also, for a readonly filesystem is reasonable. > > I don't like degrading the export. Anything there other than an intuition? > We should require an explicit ro option in this case. Well, I can't tell if Kinglong's case is something people are actively complaining about or more hypotethetical, and in any case it doesn't seem like a big deal, so I'm ignoring this for now, I guess.... --b.