On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:19:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:12:44 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <p...@macqel.be> wrote:
>
> > some combinations of filesystem and block device (at least vfat on mmc)
> > yield -EROFS instead of -EACCES when the device is read-only. Retry
> > mounting with MS_RDONLY set, just like for the EACCES case, instead of
> > failing directly.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/init/do_mounts.c
> > +++ b/init/do_mounts.c
> > @@ -394,6 +394,7 @@ retry:
> > case 0:
> > goto out;
> > case -EACCES:
> > + case -EROFS:
> > flags |= MS_RDONLY;
> > goto retry;
> > case -EINVAL:
>
> hm, what's going on here. I'd have thought it to be very logical that
> file_system_type.mount() would return EROFS if the device is read-only!
> But I'm suspecting that there is some convention that the fs is
> supposed to return EACCES in this case. So *perhaps* it is vfat-on-mmc
> which needs fixing. Dunno.
>
> Al, are you able to shed light?
from the mount(2) man page:
EACCES A component of a path was not searchable. (See also
path_resolution(7).) Or, mounting a read-only filesystem
was attempted without giving the MS_RDONLY flag. Or, the
block device source is located on a filesystem mounted with
the MS_NODEV option.
So, when the device is read-only, the error should EACCES, not
EROFS. Would seem to me that vfat-on-mmc needs fixing...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
