From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  8 00:09:27 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 43A8437B401; Thu,  8 May 2003 00:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mailbox.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 06FE743F85; Thu,  8 May 2003 00:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from l.ertl@univie.ac.at)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (adslle.cc.univie.ac.at [131.130.102.11])
	by mailbox.univie.ac.at (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4879BWZ023254;
	Thu, 8 May 2003 09:09:18 +0200
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:09:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030507225300.P9851@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
Message-ID: <20030508090240.S789@leelou.in.tern>
References: <200305072229.h47MTDTh024656@beastie.mckusick.com>
 <20030507225300.P9851@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
X-DCC-ZID-Univie-Metrics: mailbox 4251; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3
cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/51619
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 07:09:27 -0000

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Doug Barton wrote:

> Thanks for the historical perspective. I am not sure how big of a problem
> my situation is, since it will only apply to people trying to run a
> releng_4 fsck on a ufs2 filesystem under the special circumstances you
> described.

It will also affect people who try to mount a UFS2 filesystem in 4.x, as
is stated in the PR, and probably it will affect every RELENG_4 program
that tries to read a (UFS1) superblock.

> However, if it's something we can prevent with relative ease, I
> think it's worthwhile to do so. No sense loading the foot-shooting gun
> with more bullets than absolutely necessary.

That's true of course. I'm not sure about the necessity of such a fix
either, but OTOH, I would expect newfs to really wipe everything.

regards,
le

--=20
Lukas Ertl                             eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
UNIX-Systemadministrator               Tel.:  (+43 1) 4277-14073
Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID)       Fax.:  (+43 1) 4277-9140
der Universit=E4t Wien                   http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/