grub-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH] Refuse to install on XFS destroying its superblock


From: Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refuse to install on XFS destroying its superblock
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:44:57 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090701)

address@hidden wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 01:43:37PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:18:05AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>  2009-10-16  Vladimir Serbinenko  <address@hidden>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +  * util/i386/pc/grub-setup.c (setup): Refuse to overwrite XFS 
>>>>>> superblock.
>>>>>> +  (options): New option --destroy-xfs.
>>>>>> +  (main): Handle --destroy-xfs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I gave this some more thought, and I think this could be less ad-hoc.  
>>>>> We're
>>>>> treating XFS as if it were a "weird", unique thing just because it isn't 
>>>>> biased
>>>>> towards DOS-style boot like most filesystems are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, I've done something more generic, using our standard filesystem
>>>>> probing engine which should be more reliable than a single memcmp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> The danger is that fs_probe may reject filesystem as valid just because
>>>> it's newer than expected.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> What do you mean with "reject filesystem as valid"?
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Sorry for being unclear. I just meant that if some XFS structures are
>> updated then our xfs driver won't recognise it as xfs
>>     
>
>
> Then instead of blacklisting xfs, why not whitelist filesystems which
> are known to have usable blocks for embedding (doesn't the number of
> blocks vary with filesystem anyway?) and an override parameter
> (--into-unrecognized-fs).
>
>   
In long term it's the best possibility but in this case we're too near
to a release. What I want is just to avoid XFS pitfall many users may
step into
>> --
>> Regards
>> Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
>> Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Grub-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>
>   


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git 





reply via email to

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