Right, I've now disabled every grsecurity kernel config option, apart
from the overarching "Getrewted Kernel Security" one - indicating the
problem is in one of the non #ifdef parts of the patch. Could this be a
problem:
diff -ruN linux/fs/namei.c linux/fs/namei.c
--- linux/fs/namei.c Sat May 19 18:02:45 2001
+++ linux/fs/namei.c Tue May 29 01:23:36 2001
@@ -1851,8 +1963,6 @@
error = vfs_rename(old_dir->d_inode, old_dentry,
new_dir->d_inode, new_dentry);
unlock_kernel();
-
- dput(new_dentry);
exit4:
dput(old_dentry);
exit3:
Thanks
-tony
On 26 Jun 2001 19:49:19 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:25:32AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > This is only true without the COMPAT_DIR_INDEX flag. Since e2fsck _needs_
> > > to know about every filesystem feature, it will (correctly) refuse to touch
> > > such a system for now. You could "tune2fs -O ^FEATURE_C4 /dev/hdX" to
> > > turn of the COMPAT_DIR_INDEX flag and let e2fsck go to town. That will
> > > break all of the directory indexes, I believe.
> >
> > This is what he wants, a workaround so he can fsck. However, the above
> > command (on version 1.2-WIP) just gives me:
> >
> > Invalid filesystem option set: ^FEATURE_C4
> >
> > Maybe he should just edit the source so it doesn't set the superblock flag
> > for now.
>
> I haven't had a chance to analyze the directory index format to see if
> an-dirindexing-ignorant e2fsck could do any damage to the index. It's
> probably the case as long as the filesystem isn't corrupted, simply
> modifying e2fsck to ignore the compatibility flag won't hurt. But
> it's certainly not something I would recommend for any kind of
> production operation.
>
> - Ted
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
