On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:58:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > ought to calculate the right thing for modern UFS variants; I would > leave the anything other than UFS_MOUNT_UFSTYPE_44BSD and > UFS_MOUNT_UFSTYPE_UFS2 alone. If anyone wants to spend time worrying about ancient UFS incompatilities, or wants to find someone who might care, there's the The Unix Heritage Society mailing list[1]. (Don't bother trying to post the list without subscribing first, the list is run even more strictly than DaveM, and postings from people who aren't subscribers get unceremoniously dropped on the floor.) [1] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs Among other things, recents discussion on this list discuss security vulnerabilities (stack buffer overruns, et.al) on V6 and V7 Unix, and there are people on that list who will bring up historical versions of Unix on emulators, et. al. More seriously, many of UFS variants don't have any way of distinguishing between what version they are, or are safe to mount on which version of Unix. There's a reason why ext2/3/4 has rather feature compatibility masks; UFS demonstrated the joys of what happens when you don't bother with that kind of compatibility markers in file systems. So focusing just on what FreeBSD and other modern BSD implementation use is a completely fair thing to do. The enthusiasts on TUHS are perfectly capable of sending patches if they care about V6 Unix <-> Linux compatibility. :-) - Ted
