Re: Bug in wheezy images, busybox enters infinite loop when mounting .iso
On Tue 07 May 2013 at 13:55:48 +0200, Julian Rüger wrote:
> I found a bug in Busybox 1.20.2 (Debian 1:1.20.0-7), but before I report
> it, I want to make sure it's not a dup of #367605
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/linux.debian.bugs.dist/busybox$20loop/linux.debian.bugs.dist/fT4wUlqfCV4/d920VARKhCwJ).
Busybox may not be the problem here.
> It seems very similar, but there are a number of significant differences,
> so I think the cause for the same symptom may be something entirely
> unrelated.
>
> So, here's what I did:
>
> Boot debian-7.0.0-amd64-netinst.iso (or any other image, I also
> tested ...CD-1.iso) via grub2 installed on my USB thumb drive. This of
> course only loads the kernel and initrd, so the installer fails to
> "Detect and mount CD-ROM". This is perfectly expected, so I press Alt+F2,
> mount my USB (mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt) and try to mount the image:
Just checking: you used loopback with GRUB?
> mount -o loop /mnt/debian-7.0.0-amd64-netinst.iso /cdrom
>
> This is where the trouble begins. The command never finishes, gives no
> output whatsoever, but does not hang, so you can cancel it anytime
> pressing Ctrl+C. I discovered that after this, there are tons of loop
> device nodes in /dev, so I suspect what happens is something like this:
>
> Busybox tries to setup the .iso to /dev/loop0 (or any other number),
> this fails, so it increases the number (creating the device node if it
> does not exist) and tries again. The real bug seems to be that
> setting up the loop device always fails, so the above logic enters an
> infinite loop.
Having no available loop device would account for the failure.
[Snip]
> Can someone confirm the bug and/or my assumptions?
> I would also appreciate some insight into whether this could be the same
> problem as in bug #367605.
Bug #694247 describes exactly the same issue. As far as d-i is
concerned, my opinion is that requesting a resolution via its kernel is
in wishlist territory.
Reply to: