Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - CVE-2010-2392

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:47 -0500, Dave Pooser wrote: > Looks like the bug affects through snv_137. Patches are available from the > usual location-- for OpenSolaris. Got a CR number for this? (Or a link to where I can find out about the CVE number?)

[zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - CVE-2010-2392

Looks like the bug affects through snv_137. Patches are available from the usual location-- for OpenSolaris. -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com ___ zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

-- Da: Victor Latushkin A: Gabriele Bulfon Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Data: 28 giugno 2010 16.14.12 CEST Oggetto: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this? On 28.06.10 16:16, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes...they're still running...but being

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 05:16 -0700, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: > Yes...they're still running...but being aware that a power failure causing an > unexpected poweroff may make the pool unreadable is a pain > > Yes. Patches should be available. > Or adoption may be lowering a lot... I don't have ac

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

On 28.06.10 16:16, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes...they're still running...but being aware that a power failure causing an unexpected poweroff may make the pool unreadable is a pain Pool integrity is not affected by this issue. ___ zfs-discuss maili

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

Yes...they're still running...but being aware that a power failure causing an unexpected poweroff may make the pool unreadable is a pain Yes. Patches should be available. Or adoption may be lowering a lot... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

On 28-6-2010 12:13, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: *sweat* These systems are all running for years nowand I considered them safe... Have I been at risk all this time?! They're still running, are they not? So, stop sweating. But you're right about the changed patching service from Oracle. It sucks

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

mmmI double checked some of the running systems. Most of them have the first patch (sparc-122640-05 and x86-122641-06), but not the second one (sparc-142900-09 and x86-142901-09)... ...I feel I'm right in the middle of the problem... How much am I risking?! These systems are all mirrored via

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

Yes, I did read it. And what worries me is patches availability... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

On 06/28/10 08:15 PM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: I found this today: http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/06/sunoracle-finally-announces-zfs-data.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LastInFirstOut+%28Last+In%2C+First+Out%29&utm_content=FriendFeed+Bot How can I be sure my

[zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - should I be worried about this?

I found this today: http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/06/sunoracle-finally-announces-zfs-data.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LastInFirstOut+%28Last+In%2C+First+Out%29&utm_content=FriendFeed+Bot How can I be sure my Solaris 10 systems are fine? Is latest OpenSola

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

Of course I meant 2009.06   :-) Trevor Pretty wrote: BTW Reading your bug. I assumed you meant? zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank ln -s /dev/null /home/pool I then tried on OpenSolaris 2008.11 r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint= r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint=

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

On 9/22/2009 11:17 PM, Trevor Pretty wrote: zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank ln -s /dev/null /home/pool ahha, I dumbed down the process too much (trying to make it simple to reproduce). the key is in the /Auto/pool snippet that i put in the CR, but switched to /dev/null in the reproduce

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

BTW Reading your bug. I assumed you meant? zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank ln -s /dev/null /home/pool I then tried on OpenSolaris 2008.11 r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint= r...@norton:~# zfs set mountpoint=/home/pool tank r...@norton:~# zpool export tank r...@norton:~# rm -r /home/p

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

Jeremy You sure? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do%3Bjsessionid=32d28f683e21e4b5c35832c2e707?bug_id=6883885 BTW:  I only found this by hunting for one of my bugs  6428437 and changing the URL!  I think the searching is broken - but using bugster has always been a black art even when

[zfs-discuss] zfs bug

I entered CR 6883885 at bugs.opensolaris.org. someone closed it - not reproducible. Where do i find more information, like which planet's gravitational properties affect the zfs source code ?? -- Jeremy Kister http://jeremy.kister.net./ ___ zfs-di

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Bug: Value too large for defined data type

We had that with NetApps, and added this to /etc/system nfs:nfs_allow_preepoch_time=1 But that might be entirely unrelated. Lund Sengor wrote: > Hi, > > Not sure if it's the case here. However I've seen "Value too > large for defined data type" errors on systems which had date (year) > set

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Bug: Value too large for defined data type

Hi, Not sure if it's the case here. However I've seen "Value too large for defined data type" errors on systems which had date (year) set incorrectly. On 1/7/08, Arne Schwabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a strange problem with a zfs filesystem. > > zfs scrub stuff reports no error

[zfs-discuss] ZFS Bug: Value too large for defined data type

Hi, I have a strange problem with a zfs filesystem. zfs scrub stuff reports no errors. [16:50]charon:...kaputt/Crossroads# pwd /stuff/backups/kaputt/Crossroads [16:51]charon:...kaputt/Crossroads# ls 01 - Introspection (Crossroads by Mind.In.A.Box).flac [...] [16:51]charon:...kaputt/Crossroads#

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

For the record, I was able to get this same panic when I dd'd /dev/zero over a file that was part of my own test pool. Specifically, I had files of sizes 128M 192M 192M 256M in a simple pool with copies=2. I put a 109M file on the filesystem and ran 'dd count=1 bs=192M if=/dev/zero of=disk2'. Th

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs bug

You have created an unreplicated pool of the form: pool raidz /export/sl1 /export/sl2 /export/sl3 /export/sl4 I believe 'zpool add' will warn you about this, hence needing the '-f'. You then overwrite the entire cont

[zfs-discuss] zfs bug

dd if=/dev/zero of=sl1 bs=512 count=256000 dd if=/dev/zero of=sl2 bs=512 count=256000 dd if=/dev/zero of=sl3 bs=512 count=256000 dd if=/dev/zero of=sl4 bs=512 count=256000 zpool create -m /export/test1 test1 raidz /export/sl1 /export/sl2 /export/sl3 zpool add -f test1 /export/sl4 dd if=/dev/zero of

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug

No, this is expected behavior due to the limitations of NFS. The problem is that .zfs/snapshot is technically a separate filesystem, but due to limitations in NFS (although mirror mounts might solve this), we have to present it as a single filesystem. This means that we have multiple filesystems

[zfs-discuss] ZFS bug

Hi i found a bug its a bit hard to reproduce. # zfs create pool2/t1 # touch /pool2/t1/file # zfs snapshot pool2/[EMAIL PROTECTED] # zfs clone pool2/[EMAIL PROTECTED] pool2/t2 # zfs share pool2/t2 on a second box nfs mount the filesystem, same error if a solaris express box or linux # mount e