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: <48B41A1F.5060809@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:58:39 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
CC:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck shouln't consider superblock summaries as fatal

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.

If by quiescent, if you mean ->write_super_lockfs, shouldn't that path
be indistinguishable from an unmount?  Why wouldn't write_super_lockfs
also update these counts, rather than working around it in fsck?

-Eric

> Don't consider only an error in the superblock summary as incorrect.
> The kernel does not update this field except at unmount time.  Any
> other unfixed errors will themselves mark the filesystem invalid.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
--
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