Re: [gentoo-dev] checkfs oddities

[Jason Rhinelander]

Mike Lincoln wrote:
> Hello all,
> 	I believe I have found (and fixed) a trivial bug in checkfs, but that's
> not the reason for this email. I was about to file it with bugzilla and
> I found something quite strange.
>
> First off the bug:
>
> /etc/init.d/checkfs  v1.29 incorrectly tests the return code from fsck
> at line 201.
>
>
>>elif [ "${retval}" -gt 1 -a "${retval}" -lt 4 ]
>>	then
>>		ewend 1 "Filesystem errors corrected."
>>		# Everything should be ok, so return a pass
>>		return 0
>>	else
>
>
> Should, IMHO, read:
>
>
>>elif [ "${retval}" -ge 1 -a "${retval}" -lt 4 ]
>>	then
>>		ewend 1 "Filesystem errors corrected."
>>		# Everything should be ok, so return a pass
>>		return 0
>>	else
>
>
> Note the -gt goes to -ge because  fsck returns 1 on corrected errors.
> BTW. I discovered this with a jfs root file system. This is because
> fsck.jfs alway seems to  return 1 when it replays the log. I guess
> that's a feature looking at the man page.

 From man fsck, the exit codes of fsck are as follows:

             0    - No errors
             1    - File system errors corrected
             2    - System should be rebooted
             4    - File system errors left uncorrected
             8    - Operational error
             16   - Usage or syntax error
             32   - Fsck canceled by user request
             128  - Shared library error

 From that, it seems that 0, 1, and possibly 2 and 32 are acceptable, 
but to make the acceptable values clearer (and easier if 32 is allowed) 
we might consider changing the elif to:

elif [ $((retval & ~(0|1|2|32))) -eq 0 ]

That more clearly indicates that 0, 1, and 2 (or combinations thereof) 
are accepted values, but anything else is not.  It also allows us to 
add, for example, 32, which IMHO seems like it should be allowed as 
well.  Yes, it isn't known that the filesystem is okay, but if I user 
really wants to cancel it, they can.  Additionally, 64 is currently not 
defined - if it became something like "non-critical filesystem errors 
left uncorrected", it'd be trivial to add.

> Now for the odditie: I have two gentoo boxes, both have recently run
> "emerge sync && emerge baselayout". I've double checked and both boxes
> have the same version of baselayout. /However/, they have different
> versions of checkfs! I've reemerged baselayout on both machines, but
> they still have different versions of checkfs 1.23 and 1.29.

At a guess, I'd say the updated files are pending due to config 
protection, and you haven't merged them yet with etc-update?

--
-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list