From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Mz86R-0007lD-8D for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:09:43 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mz86P-0007jg-D5 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:09:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mz86K-0007dF-EG for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:09:40 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59707 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mz86K-0007d8-9E for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:09:36 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:24740) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mz86J-0003Jg-Tr for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:09:36 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so1261768fgg.12 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:09:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=br6O5qtuFAJgEiewos4RLcz9wXBEKJk8faqyX+A8g90=; b=SUhhG9CdKIDwgLZTt/LQFfd4fccxqmGGIyFo3aM7RT/IKwIfIhGZHgTCrNxk36YvMY cDW8u3NO5AeDMdHceauMIF4Zld4wSrY9C7bysPhFLdySzjOaIFWdsJRndcTX6gqu3UXw 1vdqwkCeuDsZtLZrjFuymQIswdYCVJfL2FBWU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Yv7Lx1WrbjjgU72CEq4FDZi4TnsyxDfsct4fGoVWohCiH8ybos+UP+1ilquUd5JiQb z5fHlE7kVvW25ttrODMWcmbNvugV0c6w5WYolgiqC5lXBpJvSClhO+QYt9gKvNOnpBLP fNZKXKTQ8Oq/ORiusUdwCyNGppAsqzQyP3n5I= Received: by 10.86.170.22 with SMTP id s22mr1776185fge.37.1255781374260; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian.bg45.phnet (50-157.203-62.cust.bluewin.ch [62.203.157.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm83584fge.27.2009.10.17.05.09.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AD9B3FB.9000904@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:09:31 +0200 From: Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090701) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <4AD87D15.7060408@gmail.com> <20091016160156.GA4986@nubol.oskuro.net> <20091016183805.GE7037@thorin> <4AD8D305.5000806@gmail.com> <20091016205258.GA8496@thorin> <4AD8E0CF.9080509@gmail.com> <20091016215343.GA9378@thorin> <4AD8F11D.1030007@gmail.com> <20091017112545.GA3556@thorin> <4AD9ADE9.3020004@gmail.com> <20091017120013.GA4040@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20091017120013.GA4040@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refuse to install on XFS destroying its superblock 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: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:09:41 -0000 Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 01:43:37PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >> Robert Millan wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:18:05AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >>> >>> >>>> 2009-10-16 Vladimir Serbinenko >>>> >>>> + * util/i386/pc/grub-setup.c (setup): Refuse to overwrite XFS superblock. >>>> + (options): New option --destroy-xfs. >>>> + (main): Handle --destroy-xfs. >>>> >>>> >>> I gave this some more thought, and I think this could be less ad-hoc. We're >>> treating XFS as if it were a "weird", unique thing just because it isn't biased >>> towards DOS-style boot like most filesystems are. >>> >>> Instead, I've done something more generic, using our standard filesystem >>> probing engine which should be more reliable than a single memcmp. >>> >>> >>> >> The danger is that fs_probe may reject filesystem as valid just because >> it's newer than expected. >> > > What do you mean with "reject filesystem as valid"? > > Sorry for being unclear. I just meant that if some XFS structures are updated then our xfs driver won't recognise it as xfs -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git