[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Reasons to honor readonly mount requests

> > I understand that both ext3fs and
> > reiserfs will try to fix corrupt filesystems (or at least filesystems
> > with unprocessed log entries) in-place even if they're mounted
> > read-only. Clearly, virtual replay means more work, but -- just for
> > fun -- here are some cases in which it might matter:
> >
> > 1. You want the disk image untouched for forensic analysis or data
> > recovery.
> > 2. You don't trust the disk to do writes properly.
> > 3. You don't trust the driver to do writes properly.
> > 4. You want to test a newer or unstable FS implementation w/ option to
> > go back to the older one.
> Excluding the root fs (which probably isn't involved in these sorts of
> things anyways), you can always turn off the "RECOVERY" flag on the
> filesystem and mount ext3 as ext2, which will not do any recovery.

_If_ you happen to realize that mount -o ro -t ext3 is not really read
only. sct know it may write to filesystem, now I know it; but I
believe that if you asked Joe Admin

"Linux writes to partition mounted read-only in some cases; is it a

he would say


I'm "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.043 / U:1.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site