bug-parted
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Minimum size of GPT partition table header


From: rahul dev
Subject: Re: Minimum size of GPT partition table header
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:42:54 +0800 (SGT)

Hi Jim,

> >    There seems to be a bug in function
> _header_is_valid() in file gpt.c.
> >
> > static int
> > _header_is_valid (PedDisk const *disk,
> GuidPartitionTableHeader_t *gpt,
> >               
>    PedSector my_lba)
> > {
> >   uint32_t crc, origcrc;
> >   PedDevice const *dev = disk->dev;
> >
> >   if (PED_LE64_TO_CPU
> (gpt->Signature) != GPT_HEADER_SIGNATURE)
> >     return 0;
> >   /*
> >    * "While the GUID Partition Table Header's
> size may increase
> >    * in the future it cannot span more than
> one block on the
> >    * device."  EFI Specification,
> version 1.10, 11.2.2.1
> >    */
> >   if (PED_LE32_TO_CPU
> (gpt->HeaderSize) < pth_get_size_static (dev)
> >       || PED_LE32_TO_CPU
> (gpt->HeaderSize) > dev->sector_size)
> >     return 0;
> >
> >
> > The check gpt->HeaderSize < pth_get_size_static
> seems to be incorrect.
> > I think minimum size of gpt header is 92 bytes. So,
> correct check should be
> > gtp->HeaderSize < 92.
> >
> > As mentioned in the EFI spec that the header size may
> increase in future, 
> > pth_get_size_static() will also return the increased
> size. In that case, if we are running parted on a disk
> partitioned by old versions, the above check would fail. For
> older versions, gpt->HeaderSize is 92, whereas
> pth_get_size_static() will be > 92 for newer versions
> (where gpt hdr size has been increased).
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the code.
> However, currently, pth_get_size_static() always returns 92,
> and I do
> not expect it (or the official header size) to change any
> time soon.

I agree that pth_get_size_static() will return 92 at present, but tomorrow when 
the size changes, we will have to change pth_get_size_static(). So, why not 
hard code the value to 92. Its safer and cleaner and logically looks more 
correct.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]