linux-ext4 - Re: ext4_clear_journal_err: Filesystem error recorded from previous mount: IO failure

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: <AANLkTi=jYWSKwz1=pHQyaVq22bjgO-EF5xC53x9mGdvN@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:00:05 +0200
From:	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Bernd Schubert <bs_lists@...ef.fastmail.fm>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>
Subject: Re: ext4_clear_journal_err: Filesystem error recorded from previous
 mount: IO failure

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 03:33:29PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
>>
>> is is really a good idea to allow the filesystem to mount if something like
>> that comes up? I really would prefer if mount would abort.
>>
>> Oct 22 12:37:36 vm7 kernel: [ 1227.814294] LDISKFS-fs warning (device sfa0074): ldiskfs_clear_journal_err: Filesystem error recorded from p
>> revious mount: IO failure
>> Oct 22 12:37:36 vm7 kernel: [ 1227.814314] LDISKFS-fs warning (device sfa0074): ldiskfs_clear_journal_err: Marking fs in need of filesystem
>>  check.
>>
>> (please ignore "ldiskfs", it was just renamed to that by Lustre, but is
>> ext4 based as in RHEL5.5, so 2.6.32-ish).
>
> Did you try running e2fsck first?  If it detects the error after
> running the journal, it will run the file system check right then and
> there.  If it doesn't, it's a bug.  If you're not running e2fsck
> first, and the filesystem had previously detected inconsistencies, the
> long-standing tradition is to allow that, since root should know what
> it's doing.
>
> And there are times when you do want to mount a filesystem with known
> errors; for example, in the case of the root file system, we have
> always allowed a read-only mount to continue, so that we can run
> e2fsck without requiring a rescue CD 99% of the time.
>


Ted,

IMHO, and I've said it before, the mount flag which Bernd requests
already exists, namely 'errors=',
both as mount option and as persistent default, but it is not enforced
correctly on mount time.
If an administrator decides that the correct behavior when error is
detected is abort or remount-ro,
what's the sense it letting the filesystem mount read-write without
fixing the problem?
I realize that the umount/mount may have fixed things by "unrolling"
the last transaction,
but still, the state of ERROR_FS with read-write mount, seems to be
inconsistent the the defined errors behavior.
root can always use errors=continue mount to override this restriction.

Amir.
--
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