Re: e2fsck problem: (Bad address) while doing inode scan

On Mon Mar 31, 2003 at 07:54:05PM +0200, Giulio Orsero wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:23:25 -0700, Erik Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> >> hda4 is about 9GB
> >[--------snip----------]
> >> _llseek(3, 4294967296, 0x9febfc00, SEEK_SET) = -1 EFAULT (Bad address)
> >
> >Ok.  So you have a 9 GB drive.  And you try to seek past 4 GB
> >with a kernel that does not have large file support, and the
> >kernel is responding by telling you it can't do that.
> >This doesn't look like a uClibc problem to me,
> 
> Remember that is strace of
> e2fsck ..device..
> 
> Are you saying that 2.0 and 2.2 kernels without LFS cannot support e2fsck
> checking partitions larger that 2GB?
> 
> The e2fsck linked against libc5 or glibc-2.2 completes the check on the very
> same partitions using the same runnig kernel. This is why I'm wondering what
> I might have messed up with uclibc. Maybe e2fsprogs misdetects uclibc
> headers and self-configure with wrong assumptions at compile time?

This sounds fairly likely...  Tried doing an strace and comparing
calls to lseek?  When you _compile_ e2fsck are you also compiling 
it using 2.0 or 2.2 kernel header files?  Perhaps e2fsprogs is
checking for LFS support based on the kernel headers it is
compiled against... 

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--