From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MzYsV-0002hE-Tz for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:45:07 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MzYsU-0002gC-7e for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:45:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MzYsP-0002cy-6Q for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:45:05 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35532 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MzYsP-0002cq-33 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:45:01 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:17009) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MzYsO-0004LY-Hd for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:45:00 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so1570265fgg.12 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:44:59 -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=S/hms4jq9pPTjzErGbolsb6b5UNvuLTadX8t3UWuwSY=; b=fsGR6500F2EnzGpQTsPcCUL+neh67zYenCHQQViMf/VQPTRRL1MsadUirD33zzD+g0 b/eUV/jYn3zLwx3e/vLU042VXEy0Qm2zXPvDcbi8w+f07uI1NUd2L1GsHah9YE45mOdW /NeJByxuW4dTokRv/wNe66KqIjA/F3aIyiWUw= 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=PzrxlAGYFIIpQVkvQcT/J57E8k5pDG5ofSO9lnliImEH6cqylCcmwGCxHuUcya+QZH 3w+l5+6RGxo4UyZnJhefg+WkrRbtX6jX3zOyOcuwtdUFRRE7h+HV3XJFWOrKGyjY4Q1X x0nqvO6hK2atGZcbEzvwnte3lJOVGTDBCgpyc= Received: by 10.86.184.35 with SMTP id h35mr2583801fgf.18.1255884299540; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian.bg45.phnet (227-143.203-62.cust.bluewin.ch [62.203.143.227]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20sm754045fga.5.2009.10.18.09.44.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ADB4609.7030103@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:44:57 +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> <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> <4AD9B3FB.9000904@gmail.com> <2e59e6970910170912h332e1077n2fc26afb4bd64928@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2e59e6970910170912h332e1077n2fc26afb4bd64928@mail.gmail.com> 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: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:45:06 -0000 richardvoigt@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > Then instead of blacklisting xfs, why not whitelist filesystems which > are known to have usable blocks for embedding (doesn't the number of > blocks vary with filesystem anyway?) and an override parameter > (--into-unrecognized-fs). > > In long term it's the best possibility but in this case we're too near to a release. What I want is just to avoid XFS pitfall many users may step into >> -- >> Regards >> Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko >> Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Grub-devel mailing list >> Grub-devel@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > > -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git