Re: [PATCH PING] VFS: mount must return EACCES, not EROFS

[Philippe De Muyter]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:02:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:29:19 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:20:58 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Currently, the initial mount of the root file system by the linux
> > > > kernel fails with a cryptic message instead of being retried with
> > > > the MS_RDONLY flag set,  when the device is read-only and the
> > > > combination of block driver and filesystem driver yields EROFS.
> > > > 
> > > > I do not know if POSIX mandates that mount(2) must fail with EACCES, nor
> > > > if linux aims to strict compliance with POSIX on that point.  Consensus
> > > > amongst the messages that I have read so far seems to show that linux
> > > > kernel hackers feel that EROFS is a more appropriate error code than
> > > > EACCES in that case.
> > > 
> > > Isn't the core problem that "the combination of block driver and
> > > filesystem driver yields EROFS"?  That the fs should instead be
> > > returning EACCESS in this case?
> > 
> > Does POSIX or Linux mandate that it should ?
> > 

For info, SCO Unix documents that mount(2) may fail with EROFS :
and adds "mount is not part of any currently supported standard"

	http://osr507doc.sco.com/en/man/html.S/mount.S.html

Philippe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/