RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #618134 +++

Description of problem:
fsck command does not return with proper error code but returns zero under specific circumstance. The return value of fsck_device function should appear as the error code. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
e2fsprogs-1.39-23.el5

How reproducible:
Always 

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create entry such as following to /etc/fstab: 
    /dev/sda1  /data  ignore  defaults  1 2 ###fstype is "ignore"
2. Execute # fsck -t ignore /dev/sdb1 which would return error message. 
3. Execute echo $? to confirm it returned 0 instead of error code. 

  
Actual results:
# echo $? returns 0. 

Expected results:
It should return non-zero, desirably, 8. 

Additional info:
The bug has been encountered by vendor's middle ware, which continued to try running although there were an error.

The "fsck" binary itself is now part of util-linux-ng in rhel6

-ERic

Created attachment 435077 [details]
fix fsck error handling

Doh.. Thanks Eric! Here's the patch.

Patch in comment #2 is from the partner who reported this, reviewed & localbuild tested by me.

Fixed by upstream commit 6c6f2af9e3949197cf7a70255895a2f4451f2319. Thanks for the patch!

Hmm, I'm a bit puzzled. I can't reproduce the original problem on older el6 versions now. Discussed this a bit with jmarko on irc but haven't had a chance to dig further.

Upstream commit message:

     fsck: returns proper code on exec() error
    
        # fsck -t foo /dev/sda1; echo $?
        fsck: fsck.foo: not found
        /sbin/fsck: Error 2 while executing fsck.foo for /dev/sda1
        0
    
    new version:
    
        # fsck -t foo /dev/sda1; echo $?
        fsck: fsck.foo: not found
        fsck: Error 2 while executing fsck.foo for /dev/sda1
        8

An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0699.html