linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] e2fsck shouln't consider superblock summaries as fatal

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080826170420.GE8720@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:04:20 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck shouln't consider superblock summaries as fatal

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:45:02AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Running e2fsck on a quiescent (but mounted) filesystem fails in the
> common case where the superblock inode and block count summaries are
> wrong.  The kernel doesn't update these values except at unmount time.
> If there are other errors in the filesystem then they will already
> cause e2fsck to consider the filesystem invalid, so these minor errors
> should not.

Sure, but *when* would it ever be safe to run e2fsck without -n on a
mounted filesystem?  What's the scenario where this would matter?  And
on an unmounted filesystem, if the block counts are wrong, and the
user refuses to fix them the filesystem technically really isn't 100%
valid.

					- 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