On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 12:22:43 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Anyway, what about just having read-only be the minimum for supporting a > > file system? We can say "sorry, due to no one maintaining this file system, > > we will no longer allow write access." But I'm guessing that just > > supporting reading an old file system is much easier than modifying one > > (wasn't that what we did with NTFS for the longest time?) > > "Read only" doesn't mean the filesytsem implementation is in any way > secure, robust or trustworthy - the kernel is still parsing > untrusted data in ring 0 using unmaintained, bit-rotted, untested > code.... It's just a way to still easily retrieve it, than going through and looking for those old ISOs that still might exist on the interwebs. I wouldn't recommend anyone actually having that code enabled on a system that doesn't need access to one of those file systems. I guess the point I'm making is, what's the burden in keeping it around in the read-only state? It shouldn't require any updates for new features, which is the complaint I believe Willy was having. -- Steve
