[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: turning off COMPAT_386BSD_MBRPART in disklabel
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:04:26AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > The PR rather leads to the conclusion that the support for
> > > old Partition IDs in disklabel(8) is suboptimal.
> > > Originally, the code did only consider a partition with the
> > > old ID if no new one was found. This apparently got broken
> > > when extended partition support was added years later.
> > Yeah, that's a valid point. I guess the question then is whether
> > fixing that will prevent any problematic cases from arising... and
> > whether at this point it's worth worrying about.
> Possibly the code should be willing to locate and process such a label.
> Possibly even write it back.
> But it probably shouldn't 'corrupt' it - ie leave it as a valid label
> (doesn't it contain sector number relative to the ptn iteself?
> so can't describe any other parts of the disk?)
Are *our* ancient disklabels partition-relative? It's so long ago that
I'm not sure... but the code in currently in disklabel(8) doesn't appear
to know anything at all about partition-relative labels.
Given the rest of the discussion here, the fact that fixing
disklabel(8) properly isn't completely trivial, and tls's recent
experience, I think the feature should just be turned off in
disklabel... but, just in case, not removed entirely until we branch
Does anyone object to this course of action?
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |