xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] xfsprogs: suggest "-d" option for repair of RO mount
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:56:14 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <52851CA9.8080903@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <528261AD.50501@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131113125921.GC24615@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52851CA9.8080903@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:55:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/13/13, 6:59 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > Hm, even in single user with a RO root filesystem, changing filesystem
> > on-disk filesystem structures without have them replied in memory looks
> > dangerous to me, you will keep data consistency since the fs is RO, but how
> > about memory? You might have a discrepancy between memory and disk metadata
> > contents causing in-memory only problems?
> > 
> 
> The possibility is already there; it's just a question of whether we
> suggest using it.  And my other patch suggests an immediate reboot
> when it's done, for just those reasons.

If you make the suggestion of using -d, then it should mention at
that point in time it's dangerous.

> A user needs some way to repair their root disk if they can't boot
> a rescue environment... and ext2/3/4 have been doing this since forever.
> 
> I know, none of the above are exactly arguments that its' safe... :)

Right, so let's make sure we don't give people any impression it is
safe :)

> >> +_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));

_("Unmount or use the dangerous (-d) option to repair a read-only mounted 
filesystem\n"));

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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