From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 16 08:32:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3A2106568F; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:32:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4C78FC1A; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id LAA09436; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:32:15 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1MyiER-0006p0-77; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:32:15 +0300 Message-ID: <4AD82F80.2050302@icyb.net.ua> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:32:00 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090823) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek References: <4AD5BD00.4050700@icyb.net.ua> <20091014204657.GB1727@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20091014204657.GB1727@garage.freebsd.pl> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Best , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: panic when mounting device >= 2 times X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:32:18 -0000 on 14/10/2009 23:46 Pawel Jakub Dawidek said the following: > I've this patch that is suppose to fix it: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/geom_vfs.c.patch > > But AFAIR its not complete. I think it is still possible to remount one > of the read-only mounts to read-write. > > Another possibility that comes to my mind is to keep list/array of > consumers in bo_private instead of using one consumer only. This would > be better in terms of access management. This looks very good for at least preventing the most common accidents. I've been thinking about something like creating a cloned vnode for the device vnode and giving a private copy to each filesystem. But I currently lack a lot knowledge in this area, so I can't even say if it could be feasible, let alone implement it. -- Andriy Gapon