Received: (at 18019) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jul 2014 00:45:20 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 16 20:45:20 2014 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56967 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1X7Zp1-0006dn-T2 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:45:20 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.226]:49087 helo=cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <psusi@HIDDEN>) id 1X7Zox-0006dV-B0 for 18019 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:45:15 -0400 Received: from [72.238.67.160] ([72.238.67.160:44828] helo=[192.168.1.102]) by cdptpa-oedge01 (envelope-from <psusi@HIDDEN>) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 4E/82-32691-59C17C35; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:45:09 +0000 Message-ID: <53C71C95.4030308@HIDDEN> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:45:09 -0400 From: Phillip Susi <psusi@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Brian C. Lane" <bcl@HIDDEN>, 18019 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#18019: bug-parted Digest, Vol 140, Issue 9 References: <mailman.155.1405353661.24831.bug-parted@HIDDEN> <53C40F3E.2050709@HIDDEN> <20140714192817.GV14098@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <20140714192817.GV14098@HIDDEN> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 18019 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 07/14/2014 03:28 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote: > The compelling reason for the change, other than just following > mdadm's suggestion is Doug's example scenario from the bz entry: > > "It's possible, although it means you have a broken setup, that > you could have a version 1.1 or 1.2 superblock and a version 0.90 > on the same device, and kernel autodetect could assemble it as a > version 0.90 device and corrupt the real device. Likewise, if you > use 0x83, then the kernel filesystem and udev filesystem detection > code might find something you don't want found." If you are using 1.1 or 1.2, then the filesystem won't be detected anyhow since it does not start at sector zero. Udev scripts also pay no attention to the partition type code, and so if they were broken enough to detect the fs and not the 1.0 superblock, they would do so no matter what the partition type is, so 0xDA doesn't help you there. Finally a broken setup with both superblocks present would face the same problem when mdadm goes to assemble the device instead of the kernel auto assembler. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTxxyVAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrw6asH/A7jTelYRqjcNSIYIFk+lxHe kIllhpaP7RhRcoAGHbu+OcbQqVJ7XdoAEYgGFvLJoLtYIC7mrbsDRzSWQv04ehRl gWKdjXnsCVrdwkdG0j2ECwWsxgGjJ/g5IotZkopi++2vSl4OH6jzE9m+G7XBpUI9 KbygMt7QC9b2fEDLI8kvb7sRV/LVqqMHmTONlrFcfPCUuzMo97Q8s+k0IYSKl0xN XFhbOt5BKB57rs36qpgMkOHQqTCpmCGNOwuQRvOXt5W5qpECihdOngdQMMUekMLg 68skgNhc6WVGbwEnETPC7aMtqBALZKppwMin36eHr9JPs9aDmLWRGBjP+cCN6MQ= =/LVk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bug-parted@HIDDEN:bug#18019; Package parted.
Full text available.Received: (at 18019) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jul 2014 00:31:31 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 16 20:31:31 2014 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56956 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1X7Zbf-0006H2-2z for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:31:31 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.229]:61921 helo=cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <psusi@HIDDEN>) id 1X7Zbb-0006Gn-Kc for 18019 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:31:29 -0400 Received: from [72.238.67.160] ([72.238.67.160:44823] helo=[192.168.1.102]) by cdptpa-oedge01 (envelope-from <psusi@HIDDEN>) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id AC/65-32691-E5917C35; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:31:27 +0000 Message-ID: <53C7195E.30206@HIDDEN> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:31:26 -0400 From: Phillip Susi <psusi@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rod Smith <rodsmith@HIDDEN>, 18019 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#18019: bug-parted Digest, Vol 140, Issue 9 References: <mailman.155.1405353661.24831.bug-parted@HIDDEN> <53C40F3E.2050709@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <53C40F3E.2050709@HIDDEN> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 18019 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 07/14/2014 01:11 PM, Rod Smith wrote: >> How is this at all related? Windows already ignores 0x83. > > It does with the default set of drivers. What if somebody loads a > Linux filesystem driver, though? I don't happen to know what > actually happens in this case, but that's (partly) the point: When > you set inaccurate data, you can't predict what will happen with > some random tool with which you're unfamiliar. That is a possible ( though unlikely and easily fixed and knowable by such a future hypothetical program ) problem with 0x83, but not 0xFD since that already means "raid, not normal filesystem". > * Non-kernel tools might care about the type code. In fact, Chris > quoted the mdadm man page earlier in this thread, and it explicitly > states that it DOES care about the type code! Only in the one special case of the deprecated auto assembly feature. > * Other OSes do check the type code, and if some non-Linux driver > or utility behaves in a particular way based on the type code, > setting something inappropriate invites problems that we can't > predict. They only use it as a binary "mine" or "not mine", and treat 0x83 and 0xFD, and 0xDA the same. > That's not what the modern version of mdadm wants, though. It doesn't "want" anything. It is quite happy with any type code, or not even having a partition table at all. > In an ideal world, of course, the mdadm developers wouldn't have > changed their tools' expectations from 0.9 to 1.0; but they did, > and that means that the tools that actually set the partition type > codes must adapt. Again, the tools don't know or care about the type code. > All that said, there is a further complication, and this one isn't > parted's fault: The 0xDA type code that's suggested by the mdadm > man page is NOT specific to Linux RAID. According to > http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html, it > refers to "non-FS data"; and according to > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_type, it can be that or a > Powercopy backup. There may be other specific tools that use it, > too. Thus, I'd be a little wary of just switching 0xFD to 0xDA as > the MBR RAID flag in parted. IMHO, what's needed is some > coordination between mdadm, parted, fdisk, and gdisk authors to > settle on a standard for this. That's another good reason against it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTxxleAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrwYsAH/2c5zPxITX/SS35coII5kzWw pE4a2SxDdn9fS+JIXCly2GWzWeGCznJpXBEkMMoYoicMzoVDBGZ8TzV+QM4nD2/u PtlONGFD8MpkG3PknnCYNqIVJFra3ZnA63aF0E1i77PTFt6mlu5dNkxLLk8NF4QM 2XoQCt/HkS/VkvFqmdLcqu7Adh/NHma1n4/jiQHrcTdlzu2iFgXP7qKWf/NFX8lh 0LhU/9AKw1g3dIRAAIvjUwMPL0/Jg6eyzfbNTyuw5wYdnepyBfMvYnz0hCAVq92V A4Cd0mWCb9VNyc0qQrgBOpoSiabviepnpq054K5MYJIbAN6UcuZnYEng/Z+3ZrA= =78ZZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bug-parted@HIDDEN:bug#18019; Package parted.
Full text available.Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jul 2014 19:28:51 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 14 15:28:51 2014 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54933 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1X6lvb-0005Ro-Cz for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54067) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bcl@HIDDEN>) id 1X6lvV-0005RY-ME for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bcl@HIDDEN>) id 1X6lvL-0008G1-Jk for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:36 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:57953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bcl@HIDDEN>) id 1X6lvL-0008Fx-Hm for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bcl@HIDDEN>) id 1X6lvG-0005mr-Sx for bug-parted@HIDDEN; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bcl@HIDDEN>) id 1X6lvC-00088a-Cm for bug-parted@HIDDEN; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27808) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bcl@HIDDEN>) id 1X6lvC-00087o-37 for bug-parted@HIDDEN; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:22 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6EJSJ5x012001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <bug-parted@HIDDEN>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:20 -0400 Received: from lister.brianlane.com (ovpn-113-141.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.141]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6EJSHV5012292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bug-parted@HIDDEN>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:28:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:28:17 -0700 From: "Brian C. Lane" <bcl@HIDDEN> To: bug-parted@HIDDEN Subject: Re: bug#18019: bug-parted Digest, Vol 140, Issue 9 Message-ID: <20140714192817.GV14098@HIDDEN> References: <mailman.155.1405353661.24831.bug-parted@HIDDEN> <53C40F3E.2050709@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53C40F3E.2050709@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Rod Smith wrote: > All that said, there is a further complication, and this one isn't parted's > fault: The 0xDA type code that's suggested by the mdadm man page is NOT > specific to Linux RAID. According to > http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html, it refers to > "non-FS data"; and according to > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_type, it can be that or a Powercopy > backup. There may be other specific tools that use it, too. Thus, I'd be a > little wary of just switching 0xFD to 0xDA as the MBR RAID flag in parted. > IMHO, what's needed is some coordination between mdadm, parted, fdisk, and > gdisk authors to settle on a standard for this. I don't think anyone is suggesting a change to the raid flag. I was planning on adding support for arbitrary values so that anything can be set instead of playing whack-a-mole as things change. The compelling reason for the change, other than just following mdadm's suggestion is Doug's example scenario from the bz entry: "It's possible, although it means you have a broken setup, that you could have a version 1.1 or 1.2 superblock and a version 0.90 on the same device, and kernel autodetect could assemble it as a version 0.90 device and corrupt the real device. Likewise, if you use 0x83, then the kernel filesystem and udev filesystem detection code might find something you don't want found." -- Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT)
bug-parted@HIDDEN:bug#18019; Package parted.
Full text available.Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jul 2014 17:12:01 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 14 13:12:01 2014 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54880 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1X6jnB-0001xh-Iu for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:12:01 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51965) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rodsmith@HIDDEN>) id 1X6jn5-0001xN-AM for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rodsmith@HIDDEN>) id 1X6jmu-0003fw-Fi for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:45 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:52332) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rodsmith@HIDDEN>) id 1X6jmu-0003fp-D3 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rodsmith@HIDDEN>) id 1X6jmo-0007Lg-HW for bug-parted@HIDDEN; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rodsmith@HIDDEN>) id 1X6jmj-0003am-09 for bug-parted@HIDDEN; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:34 -0400 Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net ([68.230.241.217]:35152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rodsmith@HIDDEN>) id 1X6jmi-0003ab-R1 for bug-parted@HIDDEN; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:28 -0400 Received: from eastrmimpo109 ([68.230.241.222]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20140714171126.JYFG22448.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo109> for <bug-parted@HIDDEN>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:26 -0400 Received: from nessus.rodsbooks.com ([98.182.36.23]) by eastrmimpo109 with cox id SHBS1o0090Vxc5u01HBSBf; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:26 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A02020A.53C40F3E.010E,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=F4SJgNdN c=1 sm=1 a=5/GQi7ztvdfnmBZvbhqgsw==:17 a=VQ02GByEDZYA:10 a=cvYP1zPsJcEA:10 a=-oC7iYvNpoQA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=28bguoTQAAAA:8 a=fxJcL_dCAAAA:8 a=h-g04OPQAAAA:8 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=E8L_qvUqd6qIn3Dw_MYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Y_VEDdgguPIA:10 a=2eKvNQJKnqYA:10 a=_YepGT1rgiMA:10 a=5/GQi7ztvdfnmBZvbhqgsw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from [192.168.1.2] (nessus.rodsbooks.com [192.168.1.2]) by nessus.rodsbooks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D092012F for <bug-parted@HIDDEN>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53C40F3E.2050709@HIDDEN> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:11:26 -0400 From: Rod Smith <rodsmith@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bug-parted@HIDDEN Subject: Re: bug-parted Digest, Vol 140, Issue 9 References: <mailman.155.1405353661.24831.bug-parted@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <mailman.155.1405353661.24831.bug-parted@HIDDEN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) On 07/14/2014 12:01 PM, Phillip Susi <psusi@HIDDEN> wrote: >> >> I find this logic troubling. It's rather similar to the logic that >> lead to parted using the pre-existing Microsoft basic data GUID >> when making Linux partitions on GPT disks; out of a pool of just >> under infinite alternative GUIDs. "Oh it doesn't really matter" on >> Linux, but meanwhile on dual boot systems, Windows recognizes its >> partitiontype GUID, but not the contents of the partition, and >> actively invites the user to reformat it. > > How is this at all related? Windows already ignores 0x83. It does with the default set of drivers. What if somebody loads a Linux filesystem driver, though? I don't happen to know what actually happens in this case, but that's (partly) the point: When you set inaccurate data, you can't predict what will happen with some random tool with which you're unfamiliar. > Suggests? Lieing? To whom? Nobody pays attention to the type codes. The Linux kernel doesn't, but there are at least two other cases to consider: * Non-kernel tools might care about the type code. In fact, Chris quoted the mdadm man page earlier in this thread, and it explicitly states that it DOES care about the type code! * Other OSes do check the type code, and if some non-Linux driver or utility behaves in a particular way based on the type code, setting something inappropriate invites problems that we can't predict. > Also if you really want a different type code for raid, there already > is one: 0xFD. That's not what the modern version of mdadm wants, though. In an ideal world, of course, the mdadm developers wouldn't have changed their tools' expectations from 0.9 to 1.0; but they did, and that means that the tools that actually set the partition type codes must adapt. All that said, there is a further complication, and this one isn't parted's fault: The 0xDA type code that's suggested by the mdadm man page is NOT specific to Linux RAID. According to http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html, it refers to "non-FS data"; and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_type, it can be that or a Powercopy backup. There may be other specific tools that use it, too. Thus, I'd be a little wary of just switching 0xFD to 0xDA as the MBR RAID flag in parted. IMHO, what's needed is some coordination between mdadm, parted, fdisk, and gdisk authors to settle on a standard for this. -- Rod Smith rodsmith@HIDDEN http://www.rodsbooks.com
Rod Smith <rodsmith@HIDDEN>:bug-parted@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-parted@HIDDEN:bug#18019; Package parted.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.