ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote:
uptime=insecurity.
This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins
still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need
[security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security
patches often. I almost said glibc, but on those Unixes it was libc;
glibc, however, wasn't getting security patches too often some long time
ago as well. Because these are only kernel and libc/glibc that do require
reboot (no splice or similar for me on servers, thank you).
It sounds to me like the system you are talking about, and us, sysadmins
administering it, is pretty much in MS Widows ballpark already. Right?
Sorry about my rant. I still consider not well debugged code not well
debugged code...
Valeri
Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime
won't matter when your server gets compromised.
On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
tune2fs against ext4.
Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its
usefulness?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman
<matthew.garman@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
# rpm -qf `which tune2fs`
e2fsprogs-1.41.12-18.el6.x86_64
That's in the CentOS 6.4 repo, I don't see a newer one through 6.7 but
I didn't do a thorough check, just with google site: filter.
# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.5 (Final)
# uname -a
Linux lnxutil8 2.6.32-504.12.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 11 22:03:14
UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
And that's a centosplus kernel in the 6.6 repo; while the regular
kernel for 6.7 is currently kernel-2.6.32-573.22.1.el6.src.rpm. So I'm
going to guess you'd have this problem even if you weren't using the
centosplus kernel.
I suggest you do a yum upgrade anyway, 6.7 is current, clean it up,
test it, and then while chances are it's still a problem, then it's
probably a legit bug worth filing. In the meantime you'll have to
upgrade your e2fsprogs yourself.
I did a little web searching on this, most of the hits were for much
older systems, where (for example) the e2fsprogs only supported up to
ext3, but the user had an ext4 filesystem. Obviously that's not the
case here. In other words, the filesystem was created with the
mkfs.ext4 binary from the same e2fsprogs package as the tune2fs binary
I'm trying to use.
Anyone ever seen anything like this?
Well the date of the kernel doesn't tell the whole story, so you need
a secret decoder ring to figure out what's been backported into this
distro kernels. There's far far less backporting happening in user
space tools. So it's not difficult for them to get stale when the
kernel is providing new features. But I'd say the kernel has newer
features than the progs supports and the progs are too far behind.
And yes, this happens on the XFS list and the Btrfs list too where
people are using old progs with new kernels and it can be a problem.
Sometimes new progs and old kernels are a problem too but that's less
common.
--
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
