[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, 2014-09-28 at 19:44 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 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.

Aaaaaaaaargh.  No.  And that doesn't fix the problem because we have to
support partial upgrades.

Where is the bug report on util-linux?

> 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.

Maybe you should tell this to the bug submitter...

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.

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


Reply to: