[Bug 309074] New: Installation finished with error
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074 Summary: Installation finished with error Product: openSUSE 10.3 Version: Beta 3 Platform: x86 OS/Version: openSUSE 10.3 Status: NEW Severity: Blocker Priority: P5 - None Component: Installation AssignedTo: bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: ra100@atlas.sk QAContact: jsrain@novell.com Found By: --- Created an attachment (id=162898) --> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=162898) screenshot Hello. I´m not able to install Beta3.Installation finished with error on attached screenshot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c1
--- Comment #1 from Rastislav Krupanský
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c2
--- Comment #2 from Rastislav Krupanský
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
Andreas Jaeger
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c3
Stephan Kulow
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c4
--- Comment #4 from Rastislav Krupanský
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c5
--- Comment #5 from Rastislav Krupanský
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c6
Stephan Kulow
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c7
Thomas Fehr
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
Thomas Fehr
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c8
Bernhard Kaindl
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c9
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Fehr
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c10
Stephan Kulow
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c11
--- Comment #11 from Szabolcs Szakacsits
* I made a patch which does the same which hfsplus does (fall back to read-only on dirty volumes) for ntfs-3g (it's attached to bug 300694), but unfortunately the need for it wasn't considered upstream yet, I hope it will in the future at some time tough.
Your patch was consider but the problem was solved in a different way which is included in ntfs-3g since version 1.826. You even thanked it in https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=300694#c24 The unclean NTFS journal problem is completely different what your patch didn't cover at all. Please realize that you're confusing the dirty volume case with the unclean NTFS journal file one. The former one is safe to ignore but not the latter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c12
--- Comment #12 from Bernhard Kaindl
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c13
--- Comment #13 from Szabolcs Szakacsits
Let's revert the ntfs-3g change in yast2-storage and use the kernel's read-only NTFS filesystem as it's known to reliably mount the filesystem, whereas ntfs-3g does not do so yet (with the default options). Reason(s):
Unclean journal (and hibernated Windows) is handled exactly the same way by both drivers. Mount is allowed in read-only, disabled in read-write mode. Moreover NTFS-3G mounts much more volumes in both modes which can't be mounted by the kernel driver (mft mirror, mft bitmap, bootsector, hibernation file corruptions, etc.) If an unexpected error happens during mount then NTFS-3G also gives more, clear details and instructions how the problem can be solved.
Standard fstab semantics / fstab options not properly supported:
There isn't any fstab semantic which says a driver must automatic mount something read-only when it's hazardous to mount read-write.
* always mount the filesystem, no matter how broken the state of the filesystem is (if it *can* be mounted, mount it). Examples are:
This is exactly what NTFS-3G does. Unlike any other file system today, besides ZFS, NTFS-3G even fixes several types of corruption on-the-fly to be able to mount read-write. Here are the main cases of failing mounts (utils_mount_volume() in utils.c): - volume is not NTFS - volume is so corrupted that it can't be mounted - hibernated volume and unclean journal ==> see above and below - volume is already mounted or exclusively locked by something else - wrong device, it can't be opened
* FAT (which is very defensive and will spit error messages if it has errors, but if can mount, it will mount) and
So does NTFS-3G but it doesn't fallback to read-only. The other major difference is that the FAT driver still corrupts hibernated Windows since it can't detect it. I consider the automatic read-only mount of a hibernated volume and unclean journal case a security and usability risk when a user wants to mount read-write. I think user must be notified asap in these cases so he can act accordingly. If these problems can't be solved on the Windows side then the 'remove_hibfile' and 'reset_logfile' mount options can be used in the future (now the 'force' option is used for the latter) besides the 'ro' read-only mount.
* Support for the user/users options in fstab not given. Would need suid ntfs-3g which is not considered safe so far or kernel-supported user mounting, which is an proposal of the fuse maintainer but which is in mainline yet.
NTFS-3G provides the uid of the mounting user to FUSE, so it could check the rights what it doesn't do. If mount(8) and FUSE would fix their bugs then NTFS-3G wouldn't need to be setuid-root to support unprivileged mounts and the user/users mount options. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c14
--- Comment #14 from Bernhard Kaindl
If these problems can't be solved on the Windows side...
Some people may not even have Windows available (like me here) and nonethless may want or need to access or work with NTFS partitions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider the automatic read-only mount of a hibernated volume and unclean journal case a security and usability risk when a user wants to mount read-write.
I do not understand to which security risk you refer here. I can only assume what you mean is that different behavior on low levels can trigger different behavior on higher levels, but the risk which I see here is that applications which mount partitions using ntfs-3g might not expect different behavior and could fail. In my option, it is something we have to deal with and it's good not to change already used interfaces. On the other hand, the amount of users of the ntfs-3g mount interface should be limited to ntfs-config and maybe a few other apps, but I think that the want or the need for having fall back to read-only is a valid feature which is implemented in other filesystems and which could therefore be also expected from the mount backend of ntfs-3g. (that does not neccearily mean /bin/ntfs-3g for me, that means "mount -t ntfs-3g").
I think user must be notified asap in these cases so he can act accordingly.
Agreed. The question is how to notify the user in such situations. Terminal users can be notified by simple text messages which are printed at mount time by ntfs-3g itself, and it can also print a message that it fell back to read-only and mount read-only. As ntfs-3g itself does not provide a GUI for mounting, it's a question how to inform a GUI of issues which are discovered while mounting. I now recognize that the GUIs may depend on ntfs-3g mount to handle these mount issues as it's done now. The next question is how to inform the user when ntfs-3g is requested to be mounted at boot when no one (either server or fully graphical boot without error messages during boot) is looking at messages and boot has to succeed or the system does not even start network. I think that this is the really inconvenient case which we must address as the system must at least boot, the reaction to not boot is likely a message which is too harsh, I think that you'll agree with me here. So what I'll do is to replace the current symlink /sbin/mount.ntfs-3g with a program which acts as a front end to ntfs-3g, and can deal with rw mount refusals by retrying to mount read-only. In future steps, it can be enhanced to check /etc/fstab for permitted user mounts (only mount.ntfs-3g is suid then and in a subsequent step, it could be enhanced to open the disk device in the required mode (RDONLY for read-only mounts), drop privileges and pass the opened file descriptor to ntfs-3g for mounting. Does this sound like a deal? I'll check that ntfs-config uses /bin/ntfs-3g when it depends on ntfs-3g to refuse the rw mount with an error so that it behaves as expected and inform the maintainer of ntfs-config if I'd have to change it. I'd offer that mount program of course also for inclusion into ntfs-3g, and I'll document it in an addition to the man page of ntfs-3g. I'll suggest it to the other distributors as well and I hope that this does not stay SUSE-specific. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c15
Thomas Fehr
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c16
--- Comment #16 from Szabolcs Szakacsits
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c17
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Fehr
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c18
--- Comment #18 from Will Stephenson
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c19
Cyril Hrubis
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c20
Carlo Luib-Finetti
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c21
John Jolly
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c22
Cyril Hrubis
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c23
alex shaduri
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
John Jolly
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
Cyril Hrubis
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
JP Rosevear
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User vuntz@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c26
Vincent Untz
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User szaka@ntfs-3g.org added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c27
--- Comment #27 from Szabolcs Szakacsits
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User ro@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c28
--- Comment #28 from Ruediger Oertel
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User rodrigo@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c29
Rodrigo Moya
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User szaka@ntfs-3g.org added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c30
--- Comment #30 from Szabolcs Szakacsits
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
JP Rosevear
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
Cyril Hrubis
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User aschnell@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c31
Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074
User szaka@ntfs-3g.org added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=309074#c32
--- Comment #32 from Szabolcs Szakacsits
See fate #304500.
Access denied. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com