Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:05:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Mike Bristow <mike@urgle.com>, <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Jeremiah Gowdy <data@dualcpus.com> Subject: Re: OpenBSD's FFS/dirpref/softupdates improvements Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0104200001220.24989-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104201111390.91053-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Boris Popov wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > > It needs more work, too. If you try to use an old fsck with the new kernel, > > then the old fsck will clobber some new variables in the superblock. Then the > > new kernel will panic later on instead of doing a sanity check on the new > > values in the superblock and falling back to defaults if they are bogus. This > > is a major POLA bug and the changes shouldn't go into 4.x unless this is fixed. > > This breaks the recommended method of updating stable by doing the installworld > > after rebooting into a new kernel. > > On other hand, it makes some troubles if filesystem is shared > between 4.x and -current :) > > -- > Boris Popov Hm, something just struck me. a) Why is fsck checking fields that it doesn't know as anything other than filler? b) When it says that the alternate superblock doesn't match, is that really true? If so, why isn't that being updated? Of course the kernel should sanity check the values so it doesn't panic, but making fsck not louse up future filesystem changes seems prudent as well. (If that's feasible.) Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.31.0104200001220.24989-100000>