From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MSTJ8-00086l-67 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:07:50 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MSTJ6-00084w-6v for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:07:48 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MSTJ1-00081S-GZ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:07:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60049 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MSTJ1-00081I-9k for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:07:43 -0400 Received: from smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk ([212.23.3.142]:54981) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MSTJ0-0002aK-UK for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:07:43 -0400 Received: from [82.69.40.219] (helo=riva.pelham.vpn.ucam.org) by smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MSTJ0-0007uw-B1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:07:42 +0000 Received: from cjwatson by riva.pelham.vpn.ucam.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) for grub-devel@gnu.org id 1MSTJ0-0003JT-00; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:07:42 +0100 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:07:41 +0100 From: Colin Watson To: The development of GRUB 2 Message-ID: <20090719100741.GA12723@riva.ucam.org> References: <20090717165140.GN11691@riva.ucam.org> <20090718184555.GH8867@thorin> <20090718191741.GM8867@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20090718191741.GM8867@thorin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Originating-Smarthost03-IP: [82.69.40.219] X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix when installing on pationless but partionable medium X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:07:48 -0000 On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:17:41PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I might be missing something about this check, but GRUB doesn't require that > > > the boot flag is present.  Therefore, its non presence doesn't imply this is > > > not a real msdos label. > > > > He refers to boot flag as a byte in msdos structure which can only be > > 0x00 (not set) or 0x80 (set) > > Yes. GRUB's boot.img doesn't do anything with it AFAICT. That's as may be, sure; but checking that that byte is one of the two permitted values in all four partitions happens to be a good sanity check for whether it's really an MS-DOS label or in fact something else. -- Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]