> [:430] and [DOSBOOTBLOCKSIZE-6:], skipping the string space.
Er, sorry, I meant 4 bytes.
-Nick
The OpenBSD and NetBSD code is appearantly incorrect, from my tests. I modifed
boot.c to dump the blocks to a file, then dissected them with python (yay
python). What I found, at least in my case, is that the blocks are identical up
to bye 430. From there to 6 bytes to the end (ie until byte 512
On 1/24/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> yes, but i'd like to know where wolfgang came up with those numbers.
> 52 seems a more reasonable magic number than 11 + 79. since
> apparently either works, but they aren't really equivalent, i'd like
> to know why.
>
Well how about if someo
On 1/24/06, Nick Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/06, Thordur I. Bjornsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon 23.Jan'06 at 19:19:46 -0800
> > >
> > > looking at netbsd, [snip]
> >
> > and a look at freebsd, wich is the same as netbsd:
> >
On 1/24/06, Thordur I. Bjornsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon 23.Jan'06 at 19:19:46 -0800
> >
> > looking at netbsd, [snip]
>
> and a look at freebsd, wich is the same as netbsd:
> backup[65] = block[65]; /* XXX */
> if (memcm
Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon 23.Jan'06 at 19:19:46 -0800
> > fix. Basically, just go into /usr/src /sbin/fsck_msdos/boot.c and
> > change
> > if(memcmp(block, backup, DOSBOOTBLOCKSIZE ))
> > to
> > if(memcmp(block, backup, 52))
>
> looking at netbsd, they changed it to
> +
6 matches
Mail list logo
