From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1TbHlu-000801-MW for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:23:50 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35376) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbHls-0007zE-FW for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:23:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbHlr-0002Fe-Cw for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:23:48 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]:60787) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbHlr-0002FX-8r for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:23:47 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=GZOVbHrL c=1 sm=0 a=/DbS/tiKggfTkRRHPZEB4g==:17 a=Qsx_du5GiBkA:10 a=1I5aD5_xVbAA:10 a=kbIWSPy-SZQA:10 a=S1A5HrydsesA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=fxJcL_dCAAAA:8 a=N4gRs9jz_JEA:10 a=danhDmx_AAAA:8 a=QfKxxUxMAAAA:8 a=hq81g68AGuxr1uudoCYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=/DbS/tiKggfTkRRHPZEB4g==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.78.168.186 Received: from [67.78.168.186] ([67.78.168.186:49444] helo=[10.1.1.235]) by cdptpa-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 18/37-20885-1664DA05; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:23:46 +0000 Message-ID: <50AD4661.8080408@ubuntu.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:23:45 -0500 From: Phillip Susi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GNU GRUB Subject: Re: Should LDM check be less aggressive? References: <20121121065833.7497e7e8@opensuse.site> In-Reply-To: <20121121065833.7497e7e8@opensuse.site> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 75.180.132.120 Cc: Andrey Borzenkov X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 21 Nov 2012 21:23:49 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/20/2012 9:58 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > There are multiple reports of GRUB2 refusing to install on disk > which was used for LDM in the past. Example is: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1061255 > > I tested behavior of Windows and Linux on a disk with valid LDM > signature but manually modified partition table. Both ignore LDM > labels if disk does not contain SFS partition (0x42) and treat is > as pure MBR disk. This differs from GRUB2 behavior which always > checks for LDM label whether SFS partition exists or not. > > Would the following be appropriate? It adds additional check for > partition 0x42 before checking for LDM labels. Looks nice to me. The kernel has this requirement so grub should as well. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQrUZhAAoJEJrBOlT6nu759uEH/RuU97hAKP2GcAHTkKjvcZqg Jih1USVExNW/CYzXglXXg8KjYOv7J5xQsj00KZ8LW8f0X+ns76kV1NsrraeJFETI repkr9FX55+qvUYzbl7PiykoWnC3RUp+TUzZYotZcfc0j1YraDzhAtNsZmDPfvwq n9Ljo0py/HBPrWU6rjE31voVA8tkYOUz6ztldghDT3x+OJI7w5KnXJgXEOYxqVoJ Sx9dHsCd/AKO68CwCjVuRHUeQQV1EIlVDKX0ZG21ZM2q79YEJnIChXVSvxbaySRD yB6W9BNg7hOtFPkJs9pr81qWu3YE9RwyreOLfgGR4qzPpMBQkGsdEMJqlQytq4k= =2Eyx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----