[Ocfs2-tools-devel] [PATCH] mount.ocfs2: return -EROFS if file system is readonly

[Joseph Qi]

On 17/12/28 10:01, piaojun wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
> 
> On 2017/12/28 9:11, Joseph Qi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/12/27 17:12, piaojun wrote:
>>> If metadata is corrupted such as 'invalid inode block', we will get
>>> -EROFS by calling 'mount()'. In this situation we need fix it by fsck,
>>> and mount again rather than doing meaningless retry.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piaojun at huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  mount.ocfs2/mount.ocfs2.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mount.ocfs2/mount.ocfs2.c b/mount.ocfs2/mount.ocfs2.c
>>> index e3d8871..1ab07ac 100644
>>> --- a/mount.ocfs2/mount.ocfs2.c
>>> +++ b/mount.ocfs2/mount.ocfs2.c
>>> @@ -434,8 +434,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>  			o2cb_complete_group_join(&cluster, &desc, errno);
>>>  		}
>>>  		block_signals (SIG_UNBLOCK);
>>> -		com_err(progname, ret, "while mounting %s on %s. Check 'dmesg' "
>>> -			"for more information on this error.", mo.dev, mo.dir);
>>> +		if (ret == -EROFS)
>>> +			com_err(progname, 0, "file system is now readonly due to "
>>> +				"on-disk corruption while mounting %s on %s, please "
>>> +				"fix this by fsck.ocfs2 and then retry mounting",
>>> +				mo.dev, mo.dir);
>> Could we use a meaningful error code instead of 0?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joseph
> 
> I looked over 'ocfs2_err.et', and did not find a suitable error code.
> Should we define a new error code like this?
> 
> --
> ec OCFS2_ET_CORRUPT_INODE_BLOCK,
> "Inode block is corrupt"
> --
> 
Yes, I think it should be acceptable.

> thanks,
> Jun
> 
>>> +		else
>>> +			com_err(progname, OCFS2_ET_INTERNAL_FAILURE,
>>> +				"while mounting %s on %s. Check 'dmesg' for more "
>>> +				"information on this error.", mo.dev, mo.dir);
>>>  		goto bail;
>>>  	}
>>>  	if (group_join) {
>>> @@ -478,5 +485,5 @@ bail:
>>>  	if (opts_string)
>>>  		free(opts_string);
>>>
>>> -	return ret ? 1 : 0;
>>> +	return ret;
>>>  }
>>>
>>