xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: fs change on read-only mount

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: fs change on read-only mount
From: Bgs <bgs@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:47:08 +0200
Cc: SGI Project XFS mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20090813131407.GA1088@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4A84090A.6040601@xxxxxx> <20090813131407.GA1088@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
 Thanks for the fast answer.

So the following scenarios should be ok:

1) Normal boot (no crash, previous mount was ro as well, journal empty)
-> mount ro from the beginning => partition hash stays the same

2) Mount rw at any point -> make changes -> remount ro -> sync -> create
 new hash -> next boot with ro mount has this new hash.

Regards
Bgs


Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:37:30PM +0200, Bgs wrote:
>>  Greetings,
>>
>> I don't know xfs' superblock handling well enough, so I'm asking for
>> advice here:
>>
>> Does xfs write anything on the disk when mounting read-only? Is it
>> possible to use a partitions hash (or some well defined portion of the
>> partition) for integrity checks?
> 
> It should not write anything to disk [1], but older versions did so due to
> bugs.  Doing a hash of a read-only filesystem should be fine.
> 
>> The partitions are used read-only and hash would be re-generated  if any
>> rw action was done (after remount ro or full reboot of course). Can this
>> be done? I'm concerned about 'mount count' like writes...
> 
> There is no mount-count like write in XFS.
> 
> [1] the only exception is that log reocvery is performed when we attempt 
>     a read-only mount with an unclean log, that is the box crashed while
>     writing the filesystems.  To make sure you never do this always mark
>     the underlying device readonly, using blkdev --ro.
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>