On 3 July 2014 10:33, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Oh, sorry for my confusing words. And I probably should have waited for my frustration with my mail client/device/public transport to subside before panicking^Creplying. I use a combination of ro & rw (not insanely nested) subvolumes on a few pseudo-embedded home/office servers and would like to keep that arrangement working if possible. I'm also aware that it doesn't protect against all possible bugs. > To make it clear, when mentioning 'the whole disk(or partition whatever)' I mean the FS_TREE. > (Of course not the default subvolume) > > The problem is that, even you mount a subvolume ro, you can still change contents in the subvolume > through its rw parent subvolume. > And if a subvolume can still be modified, the ro mount lose it meaning. That makes so much more sense than my original reading, which was weird and wrong and implied strange subvol-5-only magic. Sorry! > So we need special rules to prevent such things. Not that it matters, but: agreed. Tobias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
