Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Possible e2fs bug. | Date | Tue, 02 Jul 1996 12:39:50 +0800 | From | Bruce Murphy <> |
| |
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote: > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:57:06 +0800 > From: Bruce Murphy <packrat@iinet.net.au> > > The process was stuck in a loop somewhere in Kernel-land I assume, as > I couldn't terminate it. Ended up changing into single user mode to > unmount and fsck the filesystem. Still had this damn rm running chewing > up all idle CPU time. > > If you were able to unmount the filesystem while the rm was still > running, then things were pretty confused indeed. The real question is > wheather this was caused by (a) filesystem corruption, (b) a real kernel > bug / race condition in the filesystem code, (c) a kernel bug somewhere > else that trashed memory which the filesystem code depends on, or (d) a > memory corruption bug. > > Unfortunately, it sounds like you weren't able to collect enough > information to figure out which one of these cases is correct.
Filesystem was clean. (fsckly at least) and I couldn't actually unmount it, I was forced to remount it read only. I wasn't expecting that to work, but there you go.
I don't think there was any actual damage to the kernel filesystem code itself, because no other operations were behaving strangely (a parallel rm -r that finished successfully later and some other cleanup operations)
Leaves it with real options being b and d. Didn't see any way I could check (d) except to say that I haven't *seen* any of the other symptoms of hardware memory problems, I'm not looking too hard, I'm going to replace this box soon enough.
Just thought I might add my voice to anyone else's who was having problems. Might prompt the maintainer of the e2fs stuff to have another look at it sometime.
B -- Packrat (BSc/BE;COSO;Wombat Implementor) Nihil illegitemi carborvndvm.
|  |