5 ms·
Hmmm yes and no. If I set / to mount read-only in some embedded Linux system context, my intention is just that the contents of disk shouldn't change just becau
by mort96 2y ago
Hmmm yes and no. If I set / to mount read-only in some embedded Linux system context, my intention is just that the contents of disk shouldn't change just because some program decided to write something somewhere; I would be quite surprised if some recoverable metadata bit flip or something caused the system to irrecoverably fail to boot just because the readonly flag also prevented fsck from fixing errors.
However if I have a faulty drive that I connect to my system to recover data from it and I don't want it to experience any more writes because I'm worried further writes may break it further, I would be quite surprised if 'mount -o ro' caused the driver to write to it.
- vbezhenar 2y agoRecovery and mounting should be separate operations. If filesystem is not clean, it should not be allowed to mount at all.
- epcoa 2y ago“Recovering” an otherwise error free journaled or logged filesystem is considered a normal operation. Unclean just doesn’t mean an error. That’s how this works and I don’t see very many interested in changing this behavior.
- Joe_Cool 2y agoYou can disable the journal. It should(! haven't checked !) not touch the recovery information then. You also need this when you have a decade of version difference and an error on mount: `mount -oro,noload`
- bobmcnamara 2y ago> I would be quite surprised if some recoverable metadata bit flip or something caused the system to irrecoverably fail to boot just because the readonly flag also prevented fsck from fixing errors. This is exactly what happens maintaining bootloaders. As time goes on, the amount of configuration to get ext4 to reliably read a possibly dirty filesystem without modifying it has skyrocketed to the point where I started putting /boot on ext2 again.