linux-ext4 - Re: 2nd Attempt

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: <20130503131421.GC32297@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 3 May 2013 09:14:21 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Stephen Elliott <techweb@...world.com>
Cc:	'Andreas Dilger' <adilger@...ger.ca>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2nd Attempt - FSCK Errors

What you've shown us makes me suspicious about whether the hardware
device is sane or not.  In the previous e2fsck run, it set i_size to a
non-zero value.  Yet when debugfs tries to read the same inode, it's
now seeing all zero's.

So that implies the disk (or software raid device; you haven't been
clear what the underlying storage is for this file system) is not
returning the same information for a particular block as was
previously written.

If the underlying block device is not stable, there really is nothing
for e2fsck to do.  You might want to check /var/log/messages for any
error messages relating to the underlying storage device(s).  If
you're seeing I/O errors in the log files, that would be another hint.

At this point, my recommendation to you is to find a separate disk (or
RAID array if necessary) which is as big as the underlying disk, and
do an image copy (via dd or ddrescue) to a known-good storage device,
and then retry the e2fsck on this copy of the file system.

Regards,

						- 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