Re: "Write once only but read many" filesystem

[Peter Teoh <htmldeveloper@gmail.com>]

Bryan Henderson wrote:
>>> other times you talk about a filesystem that can be updated, ...
>>>       
>> NO updating is possible.
>>     
>
> I'm still not convinced you mean that, because the example you give is 
> specifically of a file that becomes immutable after some writing to it. 
> How about creating a new file?
Yes - always allowed.  

>   That is a filesystem update.  Do you want 
> to allow that?  How about directory modifications, such as rename and 
> unlink?
>   
Creating directories - always allowed.   Modification - rename/unlink 
etc will be disallowed.

> Yeah, that's what the bad guy will do.  So you haven't prevented someone 
> from undetectably modifying previously written data.
>
>   
This is the only difference between the current discussion, and the 
hardware WORM storage solution u mentioned in the previous email, due to 
it software vs hardware implementation aspect.   I have also found this:

ftp://reports.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/87/1177/CS-TR-87-1177.pdf

Well, I would like to thank you and Matthew for the discussion (I think 
using the printer is not advisable - the output is not really so 
immutable after all - JUST reprint the modified content will do.   
Similarly for WORM storage medium - just write into another CD.)

U agree with me?.   Sorry for the rubbish talk :-).

Anyway, I shall attempt to write some proof-of-concept patches to try 
out the idea.   I may fail.

Thanks.