Your message dated Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:21:19 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#236352: tmpreaper: Error messages lost in the noise
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tmpreaper
Version: 1.6.5
Severity: normal
Tags: security
The error message[1] below wouldn't be seen unless you browsed through the
entire output of tmpreaper mailed to you daily.
I have a large (90GB in 500K files :-/) directory structure managed with
tmpreaper (not in /tmp), and the error message could be anywhere in the
996KB email I noticed this in.
[1]
error: run time exceeded!
This may be indicative of an attack to use tmpreaper to remove critical files;
or the directories to clean up are excessive large and/or messed up.
Please investigate.
-- System Information:
Found unknown policy: ('722', 'testing-proposed-updates')Found unknown policy:
('722', 'testing-proposed-updates')Found unknown policy: ('722',
'testing-proposed-updates')Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (722, 'testing'), (711, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.3-lofft-snsus-264rc1mm2vm
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages tmpreaper depends on:
ii debconf 1.4.11 Debian configuration management sy
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- debconf information:
* tmpreaper/readsecurity:
* tmpreaper/TMPREAPER_TIME:
* tmpreaper/confignowexists:
* tmpreaper/readsecurity_upgrading:
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu 02 Feb 2006, Paul Slootman wrote:
> >
> > As long as the max is per fork as mentioned above, it should be good for
> > me. Let me have a few days run with --showdeleted instead of -v to
> > check the output to be sure.
>
> OK, you've had a few days :-)
>
> Any update?
I'm taking the extended silence as a sign this is not a problem
(anymore), hence closing this bug now.
Paul Slootman
--- End Message ---
