| 1 |
On 03/30 06:49, Jonathan Callen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/29/2017 10:42 PM, tuxic@××××××.de wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Before doing the wrong decision: |
| 6 |
> > How "secure" is it to use fsck of busybox in a limited environment |
| 7 |
> > (SoC) to check sdcard partitions (etx4) occasionally instead of using |
| 8 |
> > fsck.ext4 ? |
| 9 |
> > Does someone has some experiences with this ? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Thanks a lot in advance for any help! |
| 12 |
> > Cheers |
| 13 |
> > Meino |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The fsck applet provided by busybox is just the fsck(8) driver, which calls |
| 20 |
> the fsck.${FSTYPE} command to actually check the filesystem. You still need |
| 21 |
> fsck.ext4/e2fsck from e2fsprogs to actually do the check. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> -- |
| 24 |
> Jonathan Callen |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Hi Jonathan, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
thanks for your reply! :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That means, that one or both of the other binaries have to be |
| 32 |
somewhere on the sdcard... |
| 33 |
I have to search deeper ;) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Cheers |
| 36 |
Meino |
Archives