[Wilfried.Weissmann@gmx.at: Bug#277534: hal: harddisk partition scan does not check harddisk size]

[Kay Sievers]

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 20:21 +0200, Wilfried Weissmann wrote:
> Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 08:12:49PM +0200, Wilfried Weissmann wrote:
> > 
> >>Kay Sievers wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Wilfried,
> >>>thanks for the report.  Is it possible to get a
> >>> hald --daemon=no --verbose=yes
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>Output is attached...
> >>
> >>BTW: The IDE error appear only with udev. When I use devfs no error occurs.
> > 
> > 
> > HAL is not expected to work with devfs.  So this may be the reason not
> > to get the error :)
> > 
> > 
> >>>debug output? It would be nice to know, what exactly is going on here.
> > 
> > 
> >>20:03:33.017 [I] linux/osspec.c:756: handling /sys/block/hdg/hdg3 block
> >>20:03:33.019 [I] linux/block_class_device.c:592: volume.num_blocks = 578340
> >>20:03:33.019 [I] linux/block_class_device.c:600: volume.block_size = 512
> >>20:03:33.019 [I] linux/block_class_device.c:605: volume.size = 296110080
> >>20:03:33.019 [I] linux/volume_id/volume_id.c:202: get buffer off 0x11a50000, len 0x800
> >>20:03:33.020 [I] linux/volume_id/volume_id.c:237: read seekbuf off:0x11a50000 len:0x800
> >>20:03:44.955 [I] linux/volume_id/volume_id.c:241: got 0xffffffff (-1) bytes
> > 
> > 
> > There seems something wrong. We get a volume size of 296110080 bytes
> > from the kernel, but if we seek to 296026112 we get an error.
> > 
> > What is the actual size of the volume?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The partition size is correct but the partition is physically not on 
> that device. The first raid device contains the partition table at the 
> same position where the kernel expects the table of the standalone 
> harddisk (bad, bad policy from highpoint-tech). The kernel just does not 
> know that this disk is part of a raid volume and it provides block 
> devices for hdg1-3.
> The partition table is valid for the raid volume but not for hdg.

Do I get this right? The kernel creates devices for your disk, which are
not usable? Also the sysfs repreentation is invalid then? Then the
kernel should be fixed, right?

Or is there any signature (any single byte or magic string) on the
volume that indicates, that this is part of a raid set (similar to the
linux-raid, which writes a magic at the end of the volume)?

Kay

_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at freedesktop.org
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal