On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:47:11AM +0200, phcoder wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:27:05PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > >> Robert Millan wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:54:43PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > >>>> BTW GPT module checks the protective MBR. In some cases when legay OS > >>>> modified the MBR it's no longer "protective MBR". And in theese cases > >>>> GRUB will refuse to boot. Isn't the magic number check enough? > >>> If there's at least one protective GPT partition (0xee), I think this > >>> should > >>> be considered enough to accept the partmap as GPT. > >>> > >> In GPT module if first partition is not of type 0xee then it's > >> considered that no GPT is present. Is think that this check is > >> error-prone (with e.g. bootcamp) and unnecessary > > > > Agreed. Can you fix this? > > > > I send a patch for it. However I couldn't test it because of the bug in > the make system. About the bug I'll post in appropriate thread. In that > patch the pc module explicitely checks for the absence of GPT table. IMO > it's ugly. Another alternative would be to assign priorities to the > partition tables. I also tried this way and send patch for it. Again I > couldn't test it.
This patch looks overly complicated. Fixing the discussed problem ought to be much simpler... > - /* Make sure the MBR is a protective MBR and not a normal MBR. */ > - if (mbr.entries[0].type != GRUB_PC_PARTITION_TYPE_GPT_DISK) > - return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_PART_TABLE, "no GPT partition map > found"); ... here, it'd be just a matter of replacing this hardcoded '0' with an iterator. And maybe something similar for partmap/pc.c. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
