From: Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
To: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
Cc: Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Extended partition mapping wrong size
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:33:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100406153348.GE7858@nb.net.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BBB3E0F.1030309@cfl.rr.com>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:58:39AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 4/6/2010 7:47 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> > This is probably kernel bug. It's really insane that the extended
> > pseudo partition overflows to the next logical partition.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Please no. I think the size should not be more than 2 sectors (1024
> > bytes). The current concept works for years and we have in userspace
> > /etc/partitions parsers that use "if (blocks <= 1)" to detect
Sorry, /proc/partitions
> > extended partitions.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit on this? What programs have such tests and
> what would they do differently if it were larger?
I know about libblkid in e2fsprogs and util-linux-ng. It scans
/proc/partitions to get list of "normal" block devices.
We have no clue how many programs/scripts depend on this behaviour.
> > The other problem are mkfs programs, the space used for alignment
> > could be 1MiB (or more) -- it's enough many mkfs programs.
>
> What's wrong with that?
Irrelevant question ;-) It's there for years and it's well know kernel
feature.
I understand that from a pedantic point of view the current solution is
not perfect, but I don't see any practical reason why we need to change
anything. There is no issue. Right?
> If you REALLY want to, there's no reason you can't create a tiny fs there.
You have to care about the partition table (EBR).
The current 1024 bytes is completely useless size, if you enlarge the
size of the partition (for example to 1MiB) you will see reports from
people who lost their extended partitions. (I don't believe that all
mkfs programs are able to detect/skip EBR.)
> Then again, I could swear that once upon a time the kernel simply
> did not bother creating a dev node for the extended partition, and
> this seems to be a hack that was put in to make it easy for LILO to
> install to one. Personally I'd prefer going back to the old
> behavior of just not having a useless device there.
This is probably better idea than enlarge the size :-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-06 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-29 16:11 Extended partition mapping wrong size Phillip Susi
2010-04-06 11:47 ` Karel Zak
2010-04-06 13:58 ` Phillip Susi
2010-04-06 15:33 ` Karel Zak [this message]
2010-04-06 16:06 ` Phillip Susi
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=20100406153348.GE7858@nb.net.home \
--to=kzak@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=psusi@cfl.rr.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox