Bug 67660

Summary: NeXTStep disk mount via UFS fails (only) in 2.4.18-5
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Need Real Name <dmwood>
Component: kernelAssignee: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.3   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-09-30 15:39:43 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Need Real Name 2002-06-28 17:51:40 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-3 i686)

Description of problem:
mount -v -t ufs -o ufstype=nextstep -o ro /dev/sdb /mnt/NeXTHome
worked fine in 2.4.18-3, fails in 2.4.18-5 with message:

mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb,
       or too many mounted file systems

(This disk has 1024 bytes/sector, I'm pretty sure, if it matters.)
I suspect this bug is related to Bug Number 67466.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.4.18-5


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Need a NeXTStep disk partition to be present
2. mount -v -t ufs -o ufstype=nextstep -o ro /dev/sdb /mnt/NeXTHome

	

Actual Results:  Error message:
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb,
       or too many mounted file systems

Expected Results:  Message: /dev/sdb on /mnt/NeXTHome type ufs
(ro,ufstype=nextstep),
followed by successful mount.

(Above generated with -f flag to mount, FYI.)


Additional info:

Disk had 1024 bytes/sector, I think.

Comment 1 Bugzilla owner 2004-09-30 15:39:43 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of
the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem
persists.

The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, 
and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in
the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/