Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 12/29/2006 22:18:24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:55:47PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:53:00PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > We already have (or had, I haven't looked recently) code to ensure that=
> > you don't open overlapping partitions. Combined with the whole-disk=20
> > partition, that lets us effectively merge the two (there is something y=
> > open that is the whole disk).
> Elad and I looked at making this work for all ports, and with wedges, and
> concluded that it was basically hopeless. The only safe and sane policy
> seems to be "if the kernel has any partition on this disk open, don't
> let users open any of them".
What makes it hopeless?
I agree we have a problem with wedges in that they act as independent=20
devices as opposed to magic, free-form partitions. Thus detecting overlap=
is harder; we don't have a central repository like we do with a partition=
table. But that's arguably a bug of our wedge implementation. ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----