From: Matt Porter <matt.porter@linaro.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: GPT detection regression in efi.c from commit 27a7c64
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:09:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <523354F3.70001@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1379095648.2197.27.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
On 09/13/2013 02:07 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 13:01 -0400, Matt Porter wrote:
>> On 09/13/2013 12:28 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>> Cc'ing Linus.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 10:50 -0400, Matt Porter wrote:
>>>> The commit, "27a7c64 partitions/efi: account for pmbr size in lba", that
>>>> was just merged in 3.12-rc caused a regression on my system with a GPT
>>>> formatted eMMC device. In 3.11, the GPT partition table was detected
>>>> fine but now a partition table is not detected.
>>>>
>>>> Not being a GPT expert, I did some research and found that the tool used
>>>> to create the PMBR on my system shares characteristics with what is
>>>> mentioned in an explanation of Microsoft created PMBRs [1]. In short,
>>>> the size_in_lba field incorrectly has 0xffffffff even though I have a
>>>> <2TiB drive (16GiB eMMC).
>>>
>>> *sigh*. So Microsoft decided to do its own version of the GPT specs.
>>
>> Don't sound so surprised. :)
>>
>>> Up until now, Linux was incorrectly enforcing pMBR checks: not
>>> recognizing valid labels and vice versa, as with the case you are
>>> mentioning now. The changes that went in the 3.12 merge window attempt
>>> to address those concerns, enforcing the correct checks - which is also
>>> how Linux partitioning tools do it (fdisk, parted).
>>
>> Understood, and we are fixing our own manufacturing tool that was used
>> to prepopulate the eMMC. I definitely prefer to have this correct for my
>> case.
>
> Come to think of it, we do have a long existing workaround: the
> force_gpt option. Setting it will bypass any MBR checking
> (is_pmbr_valid(), specifically).
Yes, that's what I used at first after seeing what the problem was. But
then I opted to fix my PMBR.
I felt like it was a regression since it required a new option passed on
the cmdline.
-Matt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-13 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-13 14:50 GPT detection regression in efi.c from commit 27a7c64 Matt Porter
2013-09-13 16:28 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-13 17:01 ` Matt Porter
2013-09-13 17:37 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-13 18:17 ` Matt Porter
2013-09-13 18:07 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-13 18:09 ` Matt Porter [this message]
2013-09-13 18:17 ` Karel Zak
2013-09-13 18:29 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-13 18:33 ` Matt Porter
2013-09-13 19:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-09-13 21:36 ` Matt Porter
2013-09-13 22:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=523354F3.70001@linaro.org \
--to=matt.porter@linaro.org \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=kzak@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.