From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: partitions: efi: Always check for alternative GPT at end of drive Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:15:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20160426211547.GC16601@linux-uzut.site> References: <1461632806-5946-1-git-send-email-jwerner@chromium.org> <20160426102014.o7k77uzi32h73y3b@ws.net.home> <20160426183353.GB16601@linux-uzut.site> <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B402963904365@G4W3296.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B402963904365-wwDBVnaDRpYSZAcGdq5asR6epYMZPwEe5NbjCUgZEJk@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" Cc: Karel Zak , Julius Werner , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-block-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Gwendal Grignou , Doug Anderson List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) wrote: >The UEFI specification is not ambiguous - you should always look >for the backup GPT Header at the last LBA: > >"Two GPT Header structures are stored on the device: the primary >and the backup. The primary GPT Header must be located in LBA 1 >(i.e., the second logical block), and the backup GPT Header must >be located in the last LBA of the device." > >If the primary GPT Header is corrupted (e.g., CRC is bad), you >cannot trust any fields in it, including the Alternate LBA field. I'm well aware of this, and is really what I meant with 'ambiguous' (which was ambiguous in itself). All I'm arguing is that I don't see a solid reason to change the default, when we have (and have had for a long time) the gpt param alternative. >The Alternate LBA field is there to help you tolerate failures >while growing or shrinking the block device size (not important >for individual physical drives, but an issue for logical drives >presented by RAID controllers). I have nothing against the agpt, just pass a boot param and voila, you can use it. This is not some sort of recent regression we are talking about here. How is this such a burden all of a sudden? Thanks, Davidlohr