From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 25 19:50:47 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA04522 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA04482 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:50:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA02926; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:48:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:48:57 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199611260348.UAA02926@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Nate Williams , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A simple way to crash your system. In-Reply-To: <8867.848975625@time.cdrom.com> References: <199611260208.TAA02586@rocky.mt.sri.com> <8867.848975625@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [ Removing MSDOSFS ] > > I use it all the time, but I'm *very* careful not to run more than one > > process on the FS, and I unmount the darn thing as soon as I read/write > > the files to the FS. > > > > It works as long as I treat it like fragile china, and not having it > > would be a real setback for me. > > I understand this, but you also have to realize that many people don't > understand the fragile china approach (and with justification - how > *would* one generally know?) and it's a real setback to have your UFS > filesystems blown away too. :-) Agreed, but removing it wholesale isn't a very good approach either, since it also means that someone who might have the gumption to fix it won't have a starting point. We ship lots of broken FS implementations now, so I think we should continue to ship a broken/hobbling MSDOSFS. Simply not advertising it is one solution, or have mount_msdos print out something 'Danger Will Robinson, danger' might be a solution. :) :) Nate