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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox