From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f68.google.com ([209.85.214.68]:39968 "EHLO mail-it0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757299AbdKPJCy (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 04:02:54 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f68.google.com with SMTP id 72so5082365itl.5 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:02:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1510253101-10291-1-git-send-email-idryomov@gmail.com> References: <1510253101-10291-1-git-send-email-idryomov@gmail.com> From: Ilya Dryomov Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] block: enforce ioctl(BLKROSET) and set_disk_ro() To: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe Cc: linux-block , Tejun Heo , David Disseldorp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > Hello, > > I was doing some cleanup work on rbd BLKROSET handler and discovered > that we ignore partition rw/ro setting (hd_struct->policy) for pretty > much everything but straight writes. > > David (CCed) has blktests patches standing by. > > (Another aspect of this is that we don't enforce open(2) mode. Tejun > took a stab at this a few years ago, but his patch had to be reverted: > > 75f1dc0d076d ("block: check bdev_read_only() from blkdev_get()") > e51900f7d38c ("block: revert block_dev read-only check") > > It is a separate issue and refusing writes to read-only devices is > obviously more important, but perhaps it's time to revisit that as > well?) > > Thanks, > > Ilya > > > Ilya Dryomov (2): > block: fail op_is_write() requests to read-only partitions > block: add bdev_read_only() checks to common helpers > > block/blk-core.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > block/blk-lib.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Ping... Christoph, Jens, could one of you please take a look? Thanks, Ilya