| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080313205426.GD28728@mit.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:54:26 -0400 From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> To: Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: e2fsck not fixing all corruptions on the first run? On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:34:40PM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote: > e2fsck indeed does find a few corruptions, fixes them. The next run, e2fsck > says "clean" of course. But when I ran with -f, e2fsck did find more > (small) corruptions, see the full log here: > > http://nerdbynature.de/bits/e2fsprogs.pu/md4.log > http://nerdbynature.de/bits/e2fsprogs.pu/ Hmm. What I really need is *first* e2fsck run, to see what it did. > Q: How comes e2fsck would skip a few things during the first run? If it > (technically) has to, couldn't it NOT mark the fs clean so that one > knows it has to run fsck again? It's supposed to fix everything in one run. If it doesn't, it's a bug. It usually means that either it attempted to fix a corruption, and didn't fix it correctly, or some corruption confused it enough that it didn't spot another corruption in the same run. But as a result, that's why it's most useful to know what it found and fixed in the first e2fsck run. Seeing both e2fsck logs is most useful when trying to determine why it wasn't able to fix everything in one go. - Ted -- 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