On Jan 05 22:22:44, n.carr...@alum.utoronto.ca wrote:
> Given that one of the goals of the OpenBSD project is to produce
> reliable documentation, I would have expected that this kind of potential
> corruption would have been at least mentioned
> somewhere. Surely we don’t expect every user to read the code for
> all the software they use to be sure there are no well-known but
> undocumented data holes?
If a ffs's superblocks get corrupted, the fs will be unusable.
If a file's inode gets corrupted, the file will bu unusable.
Should this be mentioned in the respective manpages?
Also, libc.so corruption will break all dynamicaly linked binaries.
And if /bsd gets corrupted, the system will be unbootable.
Are these undocumented data holes? Are you distressed to find
so potentially huge an issue completely undocumented?
Jan
> Even just a line like this would be useful:
>
> “Note: bioctl(8) writes header information (such as salt values for
> crypto volumes) at the start of the original partition. See [relevant source
> file] for details. If this information should become corrupted, the
> softraid(4)
> volume will become unusable.”
>
> Thanks!
> Nathan
>
> PS I have been using OpenBSD since 2010. I like it very much in many
> ways, but I am distressed to find so potentially huge an issue completely
> undocumented.
>
>
