linux-kernel - [RFC] PATCH to fix rescan_partitions to return errors properly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45256BE2.5040702@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:32:34 -0700
From:	Suzuki Kp <suzuki@...ibm.com>
To:	Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>
CC:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, andmike@...ibm.com
Subject: [RFC] PATCH to fix rescan_partitions to return errors properly  -
 take 2

Erik,

Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:37:49AM -0700, Suzuki Kp wrote:
> 
>>Erik Mouw wrote:
>>
>>>I disagree. It's perfectly valid for a disk not to have a partition
>>>table (for example: components of a RAID5 MD device) and we shouldn't
>>>scare users about that. Also an unrecognised partition table format
>>>(DEC VMS, Novell Netware, etc.) is not a reason to throw an error, it's
>>>just unrecognised and as far as the kernel knows it's unpartioned.
>>

[...]

Thank you very much for the inputs.

As per the discussion I have made the changes to the patch.

This change needs to be implemented in some of the partition checkers 
which doesn't do that already.

Btw, do you think it is a good idea to let the other partition checkers 
run, even if one of them has failed ?

Right now, the check_partition runs the partition checkers in a 
sequential manner, until it finds a success or an error.

Comments ?

Thanks,

Suzuki

View attachment "fix-rescan_partitions-take2.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (1008 bytes)