Subject: Re: mkfs should clear possible alternate superblocks
From: David Laight <email@example.com>
Date: 09/10/2003 18:28:24
> I agree. This issue crossed my mind when I integrated the UFS2 code,
> but I forgot about it. Thanks for picking it up.
I'm not sure, but I might even have suffered some of these problems!
Another interesting question.
If I create an FFSv1 filesystem with less than 1792 (or so) inodes
per cylinder group, then write a large file that consists solely of
the value of the FFSv1 or FFSv2 magic number (or maybe even a validly
constructed superblock) - what will happen next time someone tries to
mount the filesystem?
David Laight: firstname.lastname@example.org