On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 03:09:48PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > We're in agreement here. ;) I only worry about implementing things like this > which sound like guarantees, but aren't, and end up encouraging bad behavior > or promoting misconceptions. > > More and more, I think we should reconsider Darrick's "bootfs" (ext2 by another > name, but with extra-sync-iness) proposal... Having a separate simple file system for the boot loader makes a lot of sense. Note that vfat of EFI is the best choice, but at least it is something. SysV Unix from the 90s actually had a special file system just for that, and fs/bfs/ in Linux supports that. So this isn't really a new thing either.
