Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >> Robert Millan wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 02:09:31PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> What do you mean with "updated"? You mean a new implementation of XFS? Or >>> the same instance of XFS that has been modified after use? >>> >>> >>> >> I mean next version on XFS >> > > Sorry, but what did you expect? You want to prevent PEBCAK using > heuristic. There's no way we can tell if those 512 bytes are valuable > data, only the user can. And even if you try to err on the safest side, > there's no garantee that newer versions of XFS, or other filesystems that > don't even exist yet will be detectable by us no matter what we do. > > I think best way is to have whitelist of OS which have first sector free and possible manual override like it was suggested. > Why don't we just take a backup like someone suggested a while ago? I > think there was even a patch. This way if valuable data is lost, user can > restore it (and while at it, learnt his lesson that filesystems and embedded > code aren't really supposed to be mixed in the same place). > > The backup is inevitably stored on the filesystem itself which becomes inaccessible once superblock is destroyed.
-- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
