Re: Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- From: Andries Brouwer <Andries.Brouwer@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:02:59 +0200
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:50:49AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
So: Is there any good reason to not clip the partitions to fit
within the device - and discard those that are completely beyond
the end of the device??
Almost precisely this issue came up recently.
If I recall correctly at that time the idea was to discard
partitions that do not fit on the known disk. A bad idea.
Your idea is better, namely to clip partitions.
Still, there are a few reasons why one should be careful.
One is the existence of clipped disks. There are various ways of
making a disk appear smaller than it really is - there may be
a HPA or DCO or so, or just a capacity-limiting jumper.
This may mean that the kernel does not really know the size
of the disk. The jumper may cause IDENTIFY to return a small size
while actual I/O succeeds beyond that. Or, a SETMAX command is
needed to make all of a partition available. Etc.
One is the numbering of partitions. People are very unhappy
when something causes their partitions to be renumbered.
That is an argument against the discarding.
In the forensics situation you want to take a copy of a disk.
But often that is impractical - copying this 500GB disk takes too long,
or the scratch disk is not large enough, and the copy only holds the
initial part of a disk.
You do not want to discard such partial partitions - maybe clipping is OK,
although I would prefer to see precisely the same data on the copy as on
the original, except of course that actually accessing nonexistent data
returns an I/O error, but discarding would again cause renumbering. Bad.
[As an aside: for the past twelve years or so I have muttered once a year
that it is bad that Linux does automatic probing for partitions.
It will be mistaken every now and then.
With some partition types there is a fairly large probability
that random data is seen as a partition table.
A correct system does not guess (unless asked to guess by the user).
A correct system is set up in such a way that the boot parameters tell it
1. the root disk, 2. the partition type of the root disk,
3. the root partition, 4. the filesystem type of the root filesystem.
Now the root disk can contain configuration data that causes the system
to look at specified disks in specified ways, or to do default things.
With a system that was set up correctly, your nonsense partitions
would never have been found by the kernel, and I suppose mount by label
would not have encountered any problems.]
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- From: Neil Brown
- Re: Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- References:
- Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- From: Neil Brown
- Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- Prev by Date: Re: [linux-pm] Bug in PCI core
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] sk98lin: handle pci_enable_device() return value in skge_resume() properly
- Previous by thread: Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- Next by thread: Re: Why aren't partitions limited to fit within the device?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
