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

Bug#763157: initramfs-tools: Mounting /usr by initramfs-tools breaks checkfs.sh



On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 06:49:49PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Roger, please can you look at this?
> 
> Ben.
> 
> On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 11:41 +0200, Robert Luberda wrote:
> > Package: initramfs-tools
> > Version: 0.117
> > Severity: critical
> > Justification: breaks the whole system
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > After /usr is being mounted from initramfs, system is no longer
> > bootable, because checkfs.sh script fails with:
> > 
> >   [....] Checking file systems...fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
> >   /home2: clean, 166826/610800 files, 2350575/2441880 blocks
> >   /home: clean, 120720/1831424 files, 3611320/3662820 blocks
> >   /dev/sda5 is mounted.
> >   e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting.
> > 
> > 
> >   fsck exited with status code 8
> >   [....] File system check failed. A log is being saved in
> >   /var/log/fsck/checkfs if that location is writable. Please repair the
> >   f[FAILystem manually. ... failed!
> >
> > The contents of /var/log/fsck/checkfs is:
> > 
> >   Log of fsck -C -R -A -a 

Has there been an update to util-linux to make the above -R option
skip checking /usr in addition to the rootfs?  That was a
prerequisite for mounting /usr in the initramfs.

Looking at the mount options, it occurs to me that maybe we should
use -M in place of -R when we know we have run fsck in the
initramfs.  Then it will skip /usr as a matter of course, but it
would also skip fsck of the rootfs so won't be appropriate when
not using an initramfs.

You could if you wanted try using -M in checkfs as a workaround if
the above is the case.  Or maybe check util-linux is up-to-date in
case it just needs upgrading.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux    http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   schroot and sbuild  http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
   `-    GPG Public Key      F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


Reply to: