--9zSXsLTf0vkW971A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:33:10AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:28:17PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> >=20
> > It does?  Even in the traditional BSD disklabel scheme, only the file=
=20
> > system that resides in the partition that "overlaps" the label area is=
=20
> > going to "have access to" that disklabel.
>=20
> Sure, if I give (say) a user access to that particular partition, for
> usermounted filesystems, they can then rewrite my disklabel as well.
>=20
> I'm not unhappy with a "so don't do that you fool" response, but I
> thought I'd float the idea(s) in case they have merit. Seems not.

Heh. I'd vote for the "so don't do that you fool" response. :-) If however=
=20
we wanted to add support for locking the "dislabel" sectors down, we could=
=20
do something like what Ultrix had and have explicit enable/disable calls=20
to control writing the disklabel sectors.

Take care,

Bill

--9zSXsLTf0vkW971A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBXKj3Wz+3JHUci9cRAl1hAJ9jOXFneQW3bCDIBO3+KHNVhZ7xQACeIuNd
OQGF+XuTq9s59LrVqce0APw=
=JFVC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9zSXsLTf0vkW971A--