A bit more about the dd-is-bad-topic:
IMHO it doesn't matter at all.
a) For this specific problem here, fixing a security problem automatically
fixes the risk of data corruption because careless cloning+mounting
(without UUID adjustments) too.
So, if the user likes to use dd with its disadvantages, like waiting
hours to
copy lots of free space, and bad practice, etc.etc., why should it concern
the Btrfs developers and/or us here?
b) At wider scope; while Btrfs is more complex than Xfs etc., currently
there is no other reason why things could go bad when dd'ing something.
As long as this holds, is there really a place in the official Btrfs
documentation
for telling the users "dd is bad [practice]"?
...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
