On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:10:11PM -0500, Mouse wrote: > > [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got > > fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good > > thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool. > > What sort of things? (If you care to say, of course.) I've been using > FFS_EI semi-routinely (as in, I build ~all my kernels with it, and, > while I don't want it all the time, when I do I haven't hesitated) and > have never seen any issues I can ascribe to it.
I found places in ufs/ where the byte swaps were missing. This will in general fail silently unless you happen to read through such a path and notice you got the wrong thing... or write through such a path and notice that the volume has been corrupted. I totally forget what they were, but probably it can be dug out of the source-changes archive. In any event because of the large number of code sites that touch things that need to be swapped, without some kind of automated crosscheck it's practically a given that some of them are wrong. > I haven't been trying to stress it, though. Also, depending on what > vintage you're talking about, it may have got broken - or broken worse > - in between the versions I use and the versions you looked at. Indeed. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org