On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 07:15 -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > Despite this, it really isn't a widely known or well documented > behavior > outside of developers, forensic specialists, and people who have had > to > deal with the implications it has on data recovery. There really > isn't > any way that the user would know about it without being explicitly > told, > and it's something that can have a serious impact on being able to > recover a broken filesystem. TBH, I really feel that _every_ > filesystem's documentation should have something about how to make it > mount truly read-only, even if it's just a reference to how to mark > the > block device read-only. Exactly what I've meant. And the developers here, should definitely consider that every normal end-user, may easily assume the role of e.g. a forensics specialist (especially with btrfs ;-) ), when recovery in case of corruptions is tried. I don't think that "it has always been improperly documented" (i.e. the "ro" option) is a good excuse to continue doing it that way =) Cheers, Chris.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
