On Sun, Dec 08, 2019 at 02:56:58PM -0500, Art Manion wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:08 AM Antoine Jacoutot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > > I have a system with /var and /tmp mounted as mfs.  The stat string
> > > > format returns '??' for mfs devices:
> > > >
> > > > $ stat -f %Sd /bin/cat
> > > > wd0a
> > > >
> > > > $ stat -f %Sd /var/db/libc.tags
> > > > ??
> > > >
> > > > The 'grep -q ^/dev/??' on line 98 fails causing syspatch to error out
> > > > reporting a read-only filesystem, which is not correct.
> >
> 
> 
> > > > mfs:53614 on /var type mfs (asynchronous, local, nodev, nosuid,
> > size=524288
> > > > 512-blocks)
> > > > /dev/wd0e on /var/syspatch type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid)
> >
> 
> 
> > > > Can work around it by modifying the check on line 98.  Is it OK to
> > allow
> > > > mfs filesystems?
> >
> 
> 
> > > Actually having /var mounted over MFS is absolutely not supported
> > (because this
> > > is where we store rollback tarballs and where syspatch checks to see
> > whether a
> > > particular patch has been installed).
> > > I will make that check stronger so that syspatch fails right away on
> > MFS-mounted
> > > /var.
> >
> > Ah I misread that you have /var/syspatch on UFS.
> > Ok then the behavior you are seeing is to be expected; we don't want to
> > install
> > updated files to an ephemeral fs.
> > That said, the error message could be more useful.
> 
> 
> Understood. I'm OK dealing with my non-supported choice of mounting /var as
> mfs.
> 
> The checks in question are about disk space, if the (valid!) concern is
> about losing rollback files, I'd suggest an explicit check that
> /var/syspatch is sane (local, UFS, whatever else). Every previous syspatch
> on this system worked, only syspatch66-010_libcauth.tgz failed since it
> happened to include new files destined for /var.

There is already a check.
Your /var/syspatch is on FFS, that's why it worked for previous syspatches.
But your /var/db is not, which is why it refused to install the new one.
The behavior is perfectly correct.

-- 
Antoine

Reply via email to