Re: Kernel 2.6.0-final oopsing when using e2fsck
Am Son, 2003-12-21 um 14.45 schrieb GCS:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Matthias Hentges <mailinglisten@hentges.net> wrote:
> > I'm currently running a heavily patched 2.4.22 kernel on my P4 system.
> > Since upgrading to 2.4.23 would be a lot of work due to all the patches
> > required to get my hardware working, i thought i would give 2.6.0-final
> > a try (which doesn't need *any* additional patches).
> Do you really want to upgrade your kernel? 2.6.0 still has too much
> race-conditions that users can exploit.
The race-conditions aren't an issue for me, i think. This is my private
machine and the only danger would be beeing h4x0r3d over the internet
> > Sadly, the kernel is reproducibly oopsing on me when i try to use e2fsck
> > on an ext3 encrypted cryptoloop file
> 2.6.0 has far too many issues with loopback. Thus you don't want this
> and loopback at the same time. If you really want to experience with
> this stuff, then go back to test11 and apply the -mm patchset, as that
> has fixes for this (also, check if it's upgraded to the final 2.6.0).
Ugh. So loopback is known to have problems in 2.6.0. I didn't know that,
thanks for the info.
> > (i did *not* try to e2fsck an
> > unencrypted
> > file system
> It works on three of my machines (the others have 2.4.x) for months now
> (switched around 2.5.74?).
>
> > because 2.6.0-test11 managed to _corrupt_ [yes,
> > reproducibly] an encrypted one).
> Sure, but that's an encryted one.
Well i didn't dare to mess with a valuable partition. I really would
*hate* it to reinstall because of that. I have of course backups of all
important files but not a complete image.
>
> > I found that cryptoloop in 2.6.0 wouldn't mount the encrypted file at
> > all but 2.6.0-test11 did. However -test11 corrupted the file so maybe
> > the feature has been disabled?
> Don't know that. As someone wrote: check http://bugme.osdl.org/
>
> > OS: Debian Woody (lots of upgrades)
> Any reason not upgrading into Sarge then? Sarge is pretty good, maybe
> even better than your Woody right now.
Yeah, well. I don't want to mess up a perfectly working system. Maybe my
next install will be testing or SID.
> My advise is: stuck with 2.4.22. If it's working, then all good, why
> doing risky upgrading?
The main reason for me to upgrade to 2.6 is the local root bug in
2.4.22. As i understand it, it can be used to crack a system after
remotely hacking, say SSH.
Also the increased performance of 2.6 is really nice. And of course
applying up to 6 (i think) patches to a vanilla 2.4 kernel to get my
hardware working is kinda annoying, too.
Thanks for your reply and a happy new year :)
--
Matthias Hentges
Cologne / Germany
[www.hentges.net] -> PGP welcome, HTML tolerated
ICQ: 97 26 97 4 -> No files, no URL's
My OS: Debian Woody. Geek by Nature, Linux by Choice
Reply to: