From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1P0vaG-0008L4-Oe for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:16:28 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59834 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P0va7-0008G7-2r for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:16:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P0va1-0003wj-TA for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:16:19 -0400 Received: from efeu.mur.at ([89.106.208.66]:35015) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P0va1-0003wQ-O1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:16:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by efeu.mur.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9609F222A6 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:16:09 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at efeu.mur.at Received: from efeu.mur.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (efeu.mur.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TV15YlTQcjD5 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:16:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:3e0:1:0:213:d4ff:febb:27b] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:3e0:1:0:213:d4ff:febb:27b]) by efeu.mur.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:16:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4CA32E07.1070709@mur.at> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:16:07 +0200 From: Martin Schitter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100913 Icedove/3.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grub-devel@gnu.org References: <4CA0FF76.90207@mur.at> <4CA24F0B.904@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4CA24F0B.904@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: [PATCH] segfault in grub-probe when spare or faulty disks are found X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:16:27 -0000 Am 2010-09-28 22:24, schrieb Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko: > I didn't respond to the patch because it's not correct: it only > propagates the restriction instead of removing it. Thanks for reporting > the issue. I'll fix it tomorrow (hopefully) yes, there are more consequent ways to solve the problem. my simple patch doesn't distinguish between all the special cases: index =3D=3D 0xffff: spare disk, index =3D=3D 0xfffe: faulty disk index out of range (>=3D GRUB_RAID_MAX_DEVICES). it makes a very simple test and ignores all affected devices in any=20 case. isn't that enough to prevent the segmentation fault? it would be nice, if you could find a better workaround.