WARNING: i am going to type the secret command in the following mail. if you
cannot handle it, delete it now. if you want a rational explanation for why i
would do that, read on. i am not trying to be inflammatory, just make a point.
i have been using software raid under linux for quite a while now. both my
current and prior employers are using software raid boxes that i have setup
over the past two+ years. some of the older ones are running kernel 2.0.3x and
the more recent ones are 2.2.x of some sort. some older ones are using the
0.4x raid code, the newer, 0.90.
with these 20 or so machines, i have found the 0.90 tools and kernel level
driver to be much more robust and user friendly. i can remember when raid had
a single mdtab, then MULTIPLE conf files, and now a single raidtab. the newer
versions, with the inclusion of things like martin bene's failed-disk patches,
has been one of the most useful pieces of software i have applied in an x86
server environment. by comparison, the 0.40 raid code, replete with initrds
and weird startup scripts looks quite pathetic.
while there is some point to protecting a user from system damage, the message
that is printed, and the command name needed to actually get the work done,
make the 0.90 code appear unstable or untested.
there are at least hundreds if not thousands of people on this list who use
linux, and linux software raid every day. this is code is stable, and it is
tested. it is bulletproof in comparison to the 0.4x code, and if mr cox has
his way, it will finally be in the main kernel.
as such, i feel it is time to rename the --really-force command from mkraid to
--force. to leave as-is, is just great ammunition for those who would slight
the efforts of the developers as incomplete or amaturish.
people know they are taking their own system into their hands. this is WHY
they are using linux, rather than an os that hides the real innards of the
system from them. the extra logic required to make them type the longer
command, however simple, just adds kruft to the binary, to print a message
that is a GIVEN when you are root on your box.
think about it! rm by default does not -i! and rm is potentially MUCH more
dangerous than mkraid. hell, we tell people on this list ALL THE TIME to run
mkraid --really-force on their EXISTING partitions: "it only overwrites the
raid superblock"! we dont tell people to fix problems with rm -rf * ! should
we go back and change rm to always be in -i mode? fdisk does not print such
messages. mke2fs on a clean partition? no.
i feel that mingo/gadi et al have done a fine job, and these utils need to
take the same approach as other system level programs- no convoluted messages
asking for non-disclosure, just the normal warning, and the five second pause.
raid 0.90 is almost grown up. it should act that way.
wow- that was longer than i intended on such a simple subject- sorry :)
allan noah
James Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [ Wednesday, March 15, 2000 ] root wrote:
> > > mkraid --******-force /dev/md0
>
> /me attempts to get the Stupid Idea Of The Month award
>
> Motivation: trying to keep the Sekret Flag a secret is a failed effort
> (the number of linux-raid archives, esp. those that are searchable, make
> this a given), and a different approach could help things tremendously.
>
> *** Idea #1:
>
> How about --force / -f look for $HOME/.md_force_warning_read and
>
> if not exists:
> - print huge warning (and beep thousands of times as desired)
> - creat()/close() the file
>
> if exists:
> - Do the Horrifically Dangerous stuff
>
> Benefit: everyone has to read at least once (or at a minimum create a
> file that says they've read it)
> Downside: adds a $HOME/ entry, relies on getenv("HOME"), etc.
>
> *** Idea #2:
>
> --force / -f prints a warning, prompts for input (no fancy term
> tricks), and continues only on "yes" being entered (read(1,..) so
> we can "echo yes |mkraid --force" in cases we want it automated).
>
> Benefit: warning always generated
> Downside: slightly more complicated to script
>
> Both are fairly trivial patches, so I'll be glad to generate the
> patch for whichever (if either :) people seem to like.
>
> James
>
