The argument against releasing the fsck tool seems to be that the tool they have may take the file-system that has detectable errors and add more detectable errors. I thought that went without saying. To go further, I don't see how you can produce a fsck tool that writes to disk and can promise otherwise.
fsck is for regular use, after N many mounts, after M many days, just to make sure that most of the pieces are there and they have generally the right color. Repairing filesystems is its hobby, not its job.
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds