linux-ext4 - Re: e2fsck -y says "yes" to "Abort?"

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]

Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:17:10 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: e2fsck -y says "yes" to "Abort?"

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:10:50AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I've got this bug filed against Fedora:
> 
> sh-3.2# e2fsck -y /dev/VolGroup00/VolVol02
> e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
> The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 14090240 blocks
> The physical size of the device is 8847360 blocks
> Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!
> 
> Abort? yes
> 
> I'm reluctant to invert the logic of the Abort? question as suggested
> ("Are you sure you want to continue?") because this is a significant
> enough problem that we probably should really pause for consideration.
> 
> But it seems like perhaps stopping at "Abort?", allowing the user to say
> "n" to that and then let the "-y" flag take over from there would be
> reasonable.
> 
> If this sounds ok I'll whip up a patch, something like a way to flag the
> really serious questions (?) as unaffected by -y.

Seems reasonable to me; we'll have to update the documentation to
explain that -y really doesn't mean yes to _all_ questions, but that
seems like the best approach.

					- 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