[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#18019: bug-parted Digest, Vol 140, Issue 9

From: Brian C. Lane
Subject: bug#18019: bug-parted Digest, Vol 140, Issue 9
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:28:17 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Rod Smith wrote:
> All that said, there is a further complication, and this one isn't parted's
> fault: The 0xDA type code that's suggested by the mdadm man page is NOT
> specific to Linux RAID. According to
> http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html, it refers to
> "non-FS data"; and according to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_type, it can be that or a Powercopy
> backup. There may be other specific tools that use it, too. Thus, I'd be a
> little wary of just switching 0xFD to 0xDA as the MBR RAID flag in parted.
> IMHO, what's needed is some coordination between mdadm, parted, fdisk, and
> gdisk authors to settle on a standard for this.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a change to the raid flag. I was
planning on adding support for arbitrary values so that anything can be
set instead of playing whack-a-mole as things change.

The compelling reason for the change, other than just following mdadm's
suggestion is Doug's example scenario from the bz entry:

"It's possible, although it means you have a broken setup, that you
could have a version 1.1 or 1.2 superblock and a version 0.90 on the
same device, and kernel autodetect could assemble it as a version 0.90
device and corrupt the real device.  Likewise, if you use 0x83, then the
kernel filesystem and udev filesystem detection code might find
something you don't want found."

Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT)

reply via email to

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