Software verification on our server now gives errors related to fsck and
mkfs, which give the following errors when run from a command line:

dplp4:/# fsck
fsck: there is no fsck of type HTFS.

dplp4:/# mkfs
mkfs: default type (HTFS) used
mkfs: there is no mkfs of type HTFS

Software selected for verification:

All software on system


Discrepancies Found:

File: /opt/K/SCO/Unix/5.0.7Hw/etc/fscmd.d/HTFS/fsck

Error: Wrong file type (not automatically fixable)
Expected : FILE
Found : SYML

File: /opt/K/SCO/Unix/5.0.7Hw/etc/fscmd.d/DTFS/mkfs

Error: Wrong file type (not automatically fixable)
Expected : FILE
Found : SYML

File: /opt/K/SCO/Unix/5.0.7Hw/etc/fscmd.d/HTFS/mkfs

Error: Wrong file type (not automatically fixable)
Expected : FILE
Found : SYML


5.0.7 with patches:

ERG712006 - Xsco security suid overflow

ERG712368A - DocView security

ERG712420A - Internet Manager security

Large Filesystem Performance Supplement 1.1.0a

OSS646B - Execution environment 1.1.0j

OSS656A - brand update 1.0.0a

OSS656B - licensing update 1.0.1a

Maintenance Pack 1 - 1.0.0Bs

Update Pack 1 - 1.0.0Bs

Wd driver supplement 1.1.0a



also have applied security patches and upgrades for



GNU devtools (5.0.7Kj)

OpenSSH 3.7.1p2 (5.0.7Gd)

Perl 5.8.1 (5.8.1Aa)

Samba (2.2.8Aa)

gwx libs (1.3.2Ag)



What should be done to correct these problems?



Thanks,



David P. Lurie

The problem on my system appears to be with the large filesystem performance
supplement, whether or not it is added before or after the wd driver
supplement.

Rolling back both supplements fixes the problem; adding back the wd driver
supplement doesn't cause any verification problems with fsck or mkfs, and
fsck runs without error in single user mode.

Adding the large filesystem performance supplement back after the wd driver
supplement results in the same problem. It resolves after the lfps is
removed.

The wd driver supplement does actually give one verification error, which
didn't seem to cause problems when the kernel was relinked:

File: /var/opt/K/SCO/link/1.1.1Hw/etc/conf/pack.d/dk/Driver.o

Error: Wrong file type (not automatically fixable)
Expected : FILE
Found : SYML


Is there a problem with the lfps, and is the verification error related to
the wd driver supplement significant?



I only added the lfps due to the recommendation in the wd driver readme.html
file. However, I need the wd driver supplement to upgrade
BackupEdge/RecoverEdge from 1.02.04 to 2.x to get bootable ide cdrom
support.



David P. Lurie

In article <BrUub.9260$Rk5.7914@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net> "David P. Lurie" <abc@def.net> writes:
$Is there a problem with the lfps, and is the verification error related to
$the wd driver supplement significant?

FWIW, I have one system running 5.0.7 with the lfps. fsck works
properly and we have not observed any difference in system behaviour
after installing lfps.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/

"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message > FWIW, I have
one system running 5.0.7 with the lfps. fsck works
> properly and we have not observed any difference in system behaviour
> after installing lfps.
> --

The problem is apparently related to incorrect entries in the custom
database, with errors after repair attempted.

No problems with the wd driver, as can't be corrected by custom
verify/repair, but does trash the lfps as noted when "repaired".

I have reinstalled the lfps today, no problems thus far, and just won't use
the custom verify/correct utility for now.

Updated version is to be released soon.

David P. Lurie

David P. Lurie wrote:

> "Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message > FWIW, I have
> one system running 5.0.7 with the lfps. fsck works
> > properly and we have not observed any difference in system behaviour
> > after installing lfps.
> > --
>
> The problem is apparently related to incorrect entries in the custom
> database, with errors after repair attempted.
>
> No problems with the wd driver, as can't be corrected by custom
> verify/repair, but does trash the lfps as noted when "repaired".
>
> I have reinstalled the lfps today, no problems thus far, and just won't use
> the custom verify/correct utility for now.
>
> Updated version is to be released soon.

As David says -- this is a problem in the packaging of LFPS. An updated
version is in the works. The problem does not manifest unless you go
into `custom` and tell it to "Fix Discrepancies". For instance, if you
did Software -> Verify System -> Normal system state (Quick); it would
grind for a while, then offer a dialog of "Done / Fix Discrepancies /
Help". Choosing "Fix Discrepancies" here causes circular symlinks for
HTFS `mkfs` and `fsck`, and DTFS `mkfs`.

So long as you do not "Fix Discrepancies" (or its command-line
equivalent, `custom -v quick -x` or `custom -V -x`), these utilities are
fine.

In my opinion it is generally NOT a good idea to tell `custom` to "fix"
problems it detects. It's not always 100% right about things it sees as
problems. It's much better to save the report to a file, then manually
look over the list and make any changes that you think are really
needed.

[I should also give a word of explanation about the "strict database
compliance" option. Don't use it; or at least, absolutely do not tell
`custom` to "fix" things based on it. This option compares your system,
with all of its modified files, to the checksums of a freshly installed
and completely unmodified system. It checks the checksums of files that
are _supposed_ to be modified in normal system operation; files that
`custom` knows are intended to be modified. Telling it to "fix" those
changes would rewind your system to a fresh state, actually "fresher
than fresh" since many of those files are modified automatically during
a normal installation.]

Anyway. An updated version of LFPS will be released; I don't know when.
It will have no changes to the software, only the packaging. It will be
installable on top of the current first-release LFPS; doing so will make
it once again "safe" to "Fix Discrepancies" -- though again, I do not
consider that wise, even without the specific LFPS packaging problem.

>Bela<