[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#782178: Superblock time check causes problems for fsck in initramfs



On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 08:25 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> 
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:51:53 +0000 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > Package: e2fsprogs
> > Version: 1.42.12-1
> > Severity: important
> > Tags: upstream
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > e2fsck complains if the superblock write time is in the future, and
> > because the RTC is set to local time on some systems, we are doing the
> > necessary correction of system time in the initramfs.  This is
> > undesirable because changing the time zone may now require an
> > initramfs rebuild.
> > 
> > You said that this check could be disabled in a configuration file,
> > e2fsck.conf, and we can create that in the initramfs.  This works in
> > so far as it suppresses warnings while the initramfs code is running.
> > Unfortunately, every init system currently still checks the root
> > file-system again.  If the RTC is set to local time and that is east
> > of UTC, the first fsck sets the write time in the future, and the
> > second fsck warns.
> > 
> > Please disable this warning by default.
> > 
> > Ben.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> You have reassigned this to the release-notes, but it is not entirely
> clear to me what exactly the solution is.
> 
> I had a look at [MAN 5 E2FSCK.CONF] and my best guess was you wanted us
> to recommend people to set accept_time_fudge.  Though it defaults to
> being true.

Sorry, I probably should have opened a new bug report for this.
The configuration needed to avoid the warning is:

        [options]
        broken_system_clock=1

Ben.

> ~Niels
> 
> [MAN 5 E2FSCK.CONF]: http://linux.die.net/man/5/e2fsck.conf
> 

-- 
Ben Hutchings
I'm always amazed by the number of people who take up solipsism because
they heard someone else explain it. - E*Borg on alt.fan.pratchett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: