From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 30 15:38:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0503A37B718; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:38:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id PAA27200; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:38:40 -0800 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29) via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda27194; Fri Mar 30 15:38:38 2001 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.11.2/8.9.1) id f2UNcXN08372; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from cwsys9.cwsent.com(10.2.2.1), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by passer9.cwsent.com, id smtpdtf8370; Fri Mar 30 15:38:30 2001 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) id f2UNcTN08783; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:38:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200103302338.f2UNcTN08783@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdYK8779; Fri Mar 30 15:38:10 2001 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-Sender: schubert To: Kirk McKusick Cc: Robert Watson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Background Fsck In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:32:41 PST." <200103301832.KAA10132@beastie.mckusick.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:38:10 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200103301832.KAA10132@beastie.mckusick.com>, Kirk McKusick writes: > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:05:10 -0500 (EST) > From: Robert Watson > To: Kirk McKusick > cc: arch@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Background Fsck > > Kirk, > > I haven't had a chance to look at the tunefs source lately, > but quick question: does tunefs block the setting of the > soft updates flag on a dirty file system? It seems to me > that, if it doesn't, a possible nasty sequence of events > is: system does unclean shutdown without soft updates, > administrator (possibly not realizing this) boots to > single-user mode, and sets soft updates, then attempts to > enter multi-user mode, where fsck says "ah, soft updates, > doesn't matter if it's unclean, let's background fsck". > Shortly thereafter, an inconsistency is discovered and the > system panics. As such, tunefs should only allow the > setting of soft updates on a file system marked clean. It > may already do this, but figured I should ask. > > Thanks! > > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project > robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services > > Your observation is absolutely correct. I have modified tunefs > exactly as you suggest and will be checking in that change as > part of my next set of updates which enable background fsck. I > will also note in passing that this is yet another reason why > the setting of soft updates needs to be done in newfs and/or > tunefs and not as an option in /etc/fstab. I would think the integrity checking patch to tunefs(8) should be in -stable too. Could this little change be MFC'd into -stable sometime soon? Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message