Subject: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: Bill Sommerfeld <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/28/2001 16:28:04
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
# The ability to set the clock backwards may also be used to confuse
# audit trails and LFSv1, though I think it's fixed in LFSv2.
...with all I've been hearing about LFS and seeing the headaches
concerning it (rearranging the order of data on disk, having a cleanerd,
and now the above), I posit that LFS is a horribly fragile filesystem
model, and I'm wondering why we don't do a generic logging/journaling layer
that can overlay FFS (or any other filesystem we'd like journaling on, but
FFS comes to mind since it and LFS are the only ones for which we run
a consistency check at boot time). Perhaps I'm being a bit simplistic,
and I'm SURE I'm missing something here (in which case someone will gladly
thump me soundly with a clue*4, I'm sure), but in concept, it sounds like
a potentially much better win than LFS is capable of providing.
# - Bill
NetBSD: penguin flesh never tasted so good.