Is it not the case that if you don't have ECC memory, ZFS could end up writing a checksum that does not match the data if you get a bitflip in just the right (wrong) spot?

> Incremental ZFS send streams do not have any of these properties and full ZFS send streams only have a few of them. Neither full nor incremental streams have any resilience against damage to the stream; a stream is either entirely intact or it's useless. Neither has selective restores or readily available indexes. Incremental streams are completely useless without everything they're based on. All of these issues will sooner or later cause you pain if you use ZFS streams as a backup format.

https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/ZFSSendNotA...

When I saw your submission title I thought it was that Patchwork.

That's just an aftershock.

The main quake was three days ago. M 7.4 according to USGS: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us7000m9g4...

So for an earthquake that's almost 1000x as strong, you'd think it'd be talked about more.

Or if you set rootfstype=ramfs, then you can take up to all of physical RAM, but ramfs isn't swappable.

That's exactly why you should mainline your code. Then people refactoring other subsystems will fix your code for you.

Can't you see that the kernel has its own conventions and practices that are entirely different from typical corporate practices?

But the patch was not taken. The maintainer fixed it a different way. So credit is given for reporting the issue and suggesting a fix, and that is what is represented by the Reported-By. Is that so hard to understand?

This entire HN comment section is ridiculous with everyone acting as if the author wrote an entire subsystem and someone else took attribution.

The author here figured out a bug and suggested a fix. It happens that they conmunicated their fix in the form of a patch, but that happens very regularly in kernel land.

In the end the author got a Reported-By, which is entirely appropriate for what happened. If the maintainer accepted the author's patch as-is or with minimal modification then yes, they should get Author attribution. But the patch that was taken was substantially different.

Shared mounts might be useful here. Not sure. I'd need to take a closer look at what is going on here.

But I would say this result is probably a byproduct of whatever namespacing/containerisation Google is doing, rather than an intentional effort to prevent users from changing the root CAs even as root.

As someone who's lived here for more than 20 years, I really don't know what you mean.