Root doesn't have authority??
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is more fallout from the changing of UIDs between 9.0 and 9.1 In my static partition, I'm trying to do an ls -l to what the system thinks the file belongs to. I execute su to get root privileges. I then type ls -l I get back the following error messages /bin/ls: thursday.tar.bz: Permission denied /bin/ls: check1: Permission denied /bin/ls: check1.txt Permision denied. It then lists the directory, but the files listed above - which should be in this directory - don't show up as present. This implies that root doesn't have full privilege in this directory. How can this be? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA3gV8jeziQOokQnARAtIyAKCeas288FXgtniuTpT4AmdEf+eHHgCfcU17 FsAoURtMz+Wl2IKBknN85Y4= =OavE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sunday 27 June 2004 01.23, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
This is more fallout from the changing of UIDs between 9.0 and 9.1
In my static partition,
What is a "static" partition?
I'm trying to do an ls -l to what the system thinks the file belongs to. I execute su to get root privileges. I then type
ls -l
I get back the following error messages
/bin/ls: thursday.tar.bz: Permission denied /bin/ls: check1: Permission denied /bin/ls: check1.txt Permision denied.
It then lists the directory, but the files listed above - which should be in this directory - don't show up as present.
This implies that root doesn't have full privilege in this directory. How can this be?
Is the directory on a local disk? If so, an fstab is in order. Root should always be able to do "ls". Actually, on second thoughts, it doesn't matter where it is. It is almost certainly file system corruption, since there is no way that I know of to give "ls" permissions on just some files in a directory. It's an all-or-nothing deal So fsck
On Sunday 27 June 2004 09:07, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 16.06, Anders Johansson wrote:
If so, an fstab is in order.
oops, should have read "an fsck is in order"
fsck fails when I try to run it on that partition. Do you know any way to delete this directory? I moved the readable files out, then tried rmdir. Obviously it fails as the directory isn't empty. "rm -R" fails, too as it can't access the files - even as root. Do I have *ANY* choice other than to reformat the partition?
On Sunday 27 June 2004 18.11, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 09:07, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 16.06, Anders Johansson wrote:
If so, an fstab is in order.
oops, should have read "an fsck is in order"
fsck fails when I try to run it on that partition.
In what way? What did you run, and what was the error message
Do you know any way to delete this directory? I moved the readable files out, then tried rmdir. Obviously it fails as the directory isn't empty. "rm -R" fails, too as it can't access the files - even as root. Do I have *ANY* choice other than to reformat the partition?
If fsck really fails completely, then a reformat is your only option, rescuing the files that you *can* get at first, naturally but let's see if we can't get fsck to work first, no?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 June 2004 11:14, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 18.11, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 09:07, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 16.06, Anders Johansson wrote:
If so, an fstab is in order.
oops, should have read "an fsck is in order"
fsck fails when I try to run it on that partition.
In what way? What did you run, and what was the error message
Do you know any way to delete this directory? I moved the readable files out, then tried rmdir. Obviously it fails as the directory isn't empty. "rm -R" fails, too as it can't access the files - even as root. Do I have *ANY* choice other than to reformat the partition?
If fsck really fails completely, then a reformat is your only option, rescuing the files that you *can* get at first, naturally
but let's see if we can't get fsck to work first, no?
I start by "init 1" to get to single user mode. As /storage (the corrupted partition) is in fstab, I then execute "umount /dev/hda8". At that point, I tried running fsck. I had overlooked a word in my last attempt (this is my first time of needing fsck). It is running in read-only mode; I have no idea why. I tried "fsck /dev/hda8" and "fsck -r /dev/hda8", but it makes no difference, it's running read-only. I may be able to fix it if I can get past this. The partition in question is a Reiser file system. The log file is too large to attach, but the relevant lines are vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. fsck.reiserfs /dev/hda8 failed (status 0x4). Run manually! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA3w5OjeziQOokQnARAgk9AJ4rhg7HQ8eyyTgnx4Fz3KJ+33gBhgCfeQ8H pfibi8QXdVdKzAS79b4UXgs= =bqDh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sunday 27 June 2004 20.13, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
I start by "init 1" to get to single user mode. As /storage (the corrupted partition) is in fstab, I then execute "umount /dev/hda8".
At that point, I tried running fsck. I had overlooked a word in my last attempt (this is my first time of needing fsck). It is running in read-only mode; I have no idea why. I tried "fsck /dev/hda8" and "fsck -r /dev/hda8", but it makes no difference, it's running read-only. I may be able to fix it if I can get past this. The partition in question is a Reiser file system. The log file is too large to attach, but the relevant lines are
vpf-10640: The on-disk and the correct bitmaps differs. fsck.reiserfs /dev/hda8 failed (status 0x4). Run manually!
Try reiserfsck --fix-fixable /dev/hda8 If that doesn't work, then try reiserfsck --rebuild-tree /dev/hda8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 June 2004 09:06, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 01.23, Michael Satterwhite wrote:
This is more fallout from the changing of UIDs between 9.0 and 9.1
In my static partition,
What is a "static" partition?
My term. It's a partition that has data that I don't clear during an installation. It's holds data that isn't affected in *ANY* way by a linux installation.
I'm trying to do an ls -l to what the system thinks the file belongs to. I execute su to get root privileges. I then type
ls -l
I get back the following error messages
/bin/ls: thursday.tar.bz: Permission denied /bin/ls: check1: Permission denied /bin/ls: check1.txt Permision denied.
It then lists the directory, but the files listed above - which should be in this directory - don't show up as present.
This implies that root doesn't have full privilege in this directory. How can this be?
Is the directory on a local disk? If so, an fstab is in order. Root should always be able to do "ls".
It is local *AND* in fstab.
Actually, on second thoughts, it doesn't matter where it is. It is almost certainly file system corruption, since there is no way that I know of to give "ls" permissions on just some files in a directory. It's an all-or-nothing deal
So fsck
Gotcha. Thanks -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA3t0jjeziQOokQnARAsOJAJ0Z1NliWg33Ua9CyacSJ7waNsFslACfVjCE oZbr6jBHw3t6xou+MUB3dI0= =I2H8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Anders Johansson -
Michael Satterwhite