| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:20:37 +0100 From: Matthias Koenig <mkoenig@...e.de> To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, ludwig.nussel@...e.de, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] New fsck option to ignore device-mapper crypto devices Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 18:04 +0100, Matthias Koenig wrote: >> Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > >> > Should field 8 of /etc/fstab (fs_passno) be zero for these mount points? >> > Is there any reason for it to be anything different? >> >> Why? zero would mean that they should never get checked. >> I think it is reasonable to have the choice to get your crypto >> filesystems checked. Current practise for SuSE has been to allow >> only 0, but checked this filesystem anyway, which has lead to complaints. >> So we want to do this more consistent. > > Zero tells fsck not to check the filesystem during reboot. It's what > tells fsck -A which filesystems to check. If we don't expect the > filesystem to be check-able during that phase, a non-zero value won't > have any real meaning. I see, but what are we doing with crypto filesystems for which the devices simply do not exist at this phase in the boot process? How should we specify that we want these filesystems to be checked or not at a later time in the boot process after the crypto devices have been set up? Matthias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists