Re: bug in fsck or ext2/ext3?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: David Newall <david@...>
Cc: Antoine Martin <antoine@...>, <tytso@...>, Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 - 2:21 pm

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:46:25AM +0930, David Newall wrote:
 > Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 05:56:39PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
 > >
 > >  > # rm -fr tmp/chroot.broken
 > >  > rm: cannot remove directory (...)
 > >  > Same result when trying to do anything to those files chown/chmod/touch:
 > >  > "Operation not permitted"
 > >
 > > Various files in the directories it complains about have their 'i'
 > > bit set.  lsattr will show you.   chattr -i those files, and the
 > > directory is removable again.
 > 
 > Additionally, this is a classic symptom of malware.  A directory  named 
 > "..." is a big hint.

That was "..." as in "more stuff follows" rather than the actual name
being reported.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
bug in fsck or ext2/ext3?, Antoine Martin, (Mon Sep 24, 12:56 pm)
Re: bug in fsck or ext2/ext3?, Alistair John Strachan, (Mon Sep 24, 1:14 pm)
Re: bug in fsck or ext2/ext3?, Dave Jones, (Mon Sep 24, 1:04 pm)
Re: bug in fsck or ext2/ext3?, David Newall, (Mon Sep 24, 2:16 pm)
Re: bug in fsck or ext2/ext3?, Dave Jones, (Mon Sep 24, 2:21 pm)