On 11/13/13, 6:59 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> Hm, even in single user with a RO root filesystem, changing filesystem
> on-disk filesystem structures without have them replied in memory looks
> dangerous to me, you will keep data consistency since the fs is RO, but how
> about memory? You might have a discrepancy between memory and disk metadata
> contents causing in-memory only problems?
>
The possibility is already there; it's just a question of whether we
suggest using it. And my other patch suggests an immediate reboot
when it's done, for just those reasons.
A user needs some way to repair their root disk if they can't boot
a rescue environment... and ext2/3/4 have been doing this since forever.
I know, none of the above are exactly arguments that its' safe... :)
-Eric
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:13:17AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> How dangerous is dangerous?
>>
>> We could offer the suggestion of a "-d" repair, if we're
>> in single-user mode with the root fs mounted readonly.
>>
>> This change suggests -d to repair any RO mounted fs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/repair/init.c b/repair/init.c
>> index c3f380b..a7a7613 100644
>> --- a/repair/init.c
>> +++ b/repair/init.c
>> @@ -97,8 +97,17 @@ xfs_init(libxfs_init_t *args)
>> else
>> args->isreadonly = LIBXFS_EXCLUSIVELY;
>>
>> - if (!libxfs_init(args))
>> + if (!libxfs_init(args)) {
>> + /* would -d be an option? */
>> + if (!no_modify && !dangerously) {
>> + args->isreadonly = (LIBXFS_ISINACTIVE |
>> + LIBXFS_DANGEROUSLY);
>> + if (libxfs_init(args))
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> +_("Unmount or use -d to repair a read-only mounted filesystem\n"));
>> + }
>> do_error(_("couldn't initialize XFS library\n"));
>> + }
>>
>> ts_create();
>> increase_rlimit();
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
