From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 4 11:01:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4FF16A4CE for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from internet.potentialtech.com (h-66-167-251-6.phlapafg.covad.net [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A924B43D2F for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:01:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from working.potentialtech.com (pa-plum1c-102.pit.adelphia.net [24.53.179.102]) by internet.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005DB69A71; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:00:36 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Erik Trulsson Message-Id: <20040604140036.0a1ef5f0.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20040604175551.GA66111@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <6.1.1.1.2.20040604123158.00ab97d0@localhost> <20040604175551.GA66111@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Organization: Potential Technologies X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org cc: jbronson@wixb.com Subject: Re: security level and fsck X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:01:05 -0000 Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:32:51PM -0500, J.D. Bronson wrote: > > is there any connection to fsck not be able to run when > > I am at security level 3 under 5.2.1? > > > > That seems odd, but sure seems to be the case. > > That sounds very likely. I would imagine that fsck needs write access > to the raw disks in order to do its job, but such access is not allowed > under securelevel 2 and above. > fsck is normally run very early in the boot-sequence - before the > securelevel is raised - so in normal operation that would not be any > major problem. What about 5's background fsck? Is that set up so it's able to run after the securelevel has been raised? Background fsck seems to wait a minute or so for the machine to boot before it starts. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com