On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Kevin Oberman wrote:
I don't know of a concerted effort by anyone to improve UFS in this way. I
would guess that the odd bug would have been resolved, but no large scale
work.
Another thing to keep in mind is that filesystem mounting is only available
to the super-user. If a feature came along such as automatically mounting
USB drives, these bugs would indeed be critical. But for now, they are not.
Not on the base system, but Gnome 2.16 with hald running will mount a
removable device automatically. The standard configuration of Gnome runs
hald. Allowing user mounts of removable media is even formalized by the
addition of /media to hier(7). I'm not sure this should simply be treated as
not being significant.
At least for now, "untrusted" UFS file systems should not be mounted without
first performing a file system check on them. I'd like to see resilience
improved so that we're not dealing with panic scenarios on a heavily corrupted
UFS, but it's fairly well documented that we consider file systems to be in
one of three states: clean, in which case they are by definition not corrupt,
requiring a bgfsck (i.e., garbage collection following a fail stop with soft
updates enabled), or dirty (requiring a full fsck before mount).
I think a better target for resilience improvements is actually msdosfs, since
users are far more likely to want to deal with potentially currupted FAT file
systems from USB devices than UFS file systems from arbitrary sources. And,
unlike UFS, it's fairly likely someone with only moderate VFS/VM background
could do the basics of this work, with an immediate practical benefit.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
