Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755179Ab3IMSdh (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:33:37 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:58004 "EHLO mail-ie0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755114Ab3IMSde (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:33:34 -0400 Message-ID: <52335A7A.6000406@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:33:30 -0400 From: Matt Porter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130804 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Davidlohr Bueso CC: Karel Zak , Matt Fleming , Linux Kernel Mailing List , torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: GPT detection regression in efi.c from commit 27a7c64 References: <20130913145033.GA8502@ohporter.com> <1379089736.2197.14.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <52334506.9030802@linaro.org> <1379095648.2197.27.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <523354F3.70001@linaro.org> <20130913181720.GA1614@x2.net.home> <1379096972.2197.31.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <1379096972.2197.31.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2021 Lines: 49 On 09/13/2013 02:29 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 20:17 +0200, Karel Zak wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 02:09:55PM -0400, Matt Porter wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Yep, it is *regression* and I guess Davidlohr is going to fix it asap :-) > > I was doing a git revert, but what would you guys think of keeping the > check but making it more flexible? Instead of enforcing the minimum, > just make sure that the size_in_lba is either the whole disk or 2 TiB, > that should take care of Matt's issue. That seems to be the way to go given the departure from the spec. > diff --git a/block/partitions/efi.c b/block/partitions/efi.c > index 1a5ec9a..df2fca1 100644 > --- a/block/partitions/efi.c > +++ b/block/partitions/efi.c > @@ -220,8 +220,8 @@ check_hybrid: > * Hybrid MBRs do not necessarily comply with this. > */ > if (ret == GPT_MBR_PROTECTIVE) { > - if (le32_to_cpu(mbr->partition_record[part].size_in_lba) != > - min((uint32_t) total_sectors - 1, 0xFFFFFFFF)) > + if (le32_to_cpu(mbr->partition_record[part].size_in_lba) != (uint32_t) total_sectors - 1 || > + le32_to_cpu(mbr->partition_record[part].size_in_lba) != 0xFFFFFFFF) > ret = 0; > } > done: > > Karel, I guess any changes that we do here should apply to fdisk :) > > Thanks, > Davidlohr > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/