From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Apr 4 21:50:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781A837B43E for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:50:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f354oRh32168; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:50:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:50:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Kirk McKusick Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Background Fsck In-Reply-To: <200104012342.QAA19845@beastie.mckusick.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kirk, Another usability question. Was wondering about the possibility of multiple background fsck's getting started at a time, et al, possibly due to bad behavior by the user. Can the user get shot in the foot in the following situations: 1) They unmount a file system during a background fsck -- not all that unlikely. (Assuming that fsck keeps a file open for use with the sysctl, or possibly eventually vfsop, a non-forcible unmount should get EBUSY, but not sure what a forcible unmount will do). 2) They start a second background fsck running at the same time as the first. 3) They perform a remount, possibly changing between read-only and read-write. In some of these, it may be OK for the user to be shot in the foot, but it might be worth considering strategies to prevent foot-shooting, especially in the case of remount situations. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message