From owner-freebsd-current Thu Nov 28 17:21: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6210937B401 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3C543EA9 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:21:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08189; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:20:46 +1100 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:34:27 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Riccardo Torrini , Subject: Re: Trivial patch: fdisk doesn't recognize my partitions In-Reply-To: <3475.1038522113@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20021129122955.K15170-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Riccardo Torrini write > s: > >I have 4 primary partitions and I use a boot manager (magic.com) > >that install some black magic that hide unused partition, this > >permit to have multiple 'other-OS' partition that don't know of > >each other (but, obviously, FreeBSD can see and mount all of them). > > > >As far as I know it use an EXOR 0x10 to hide/unhide but fdisk doesn't > >recognize 0x0B/0x0C fat32 when hidden (0x1B/0x1C) > > > >This is the patch, that can be extended easily to cover the range > >0x1A-0x1F (0x0A-0x0F when hidden). I simply copied strings from > >0x0B/0x0C and added Hidden in front of them :-) Any comment? > >(I don't know if 0x1B/0x1C are registered as used) > > I think this is very marginal use really... > > If we really wanted to support this convention, we should not add > (almost-duplicate) entries in the table, but rather on missing > an entry in the table, try again after xor'ing with the "hide-bit" > and see if we then get a hit. > > But as I said, this is rather marginal and I really don't feel > it should go in unless this xor-0x10 convention is more widespread. "Hiding" partitions is a bug IMO, so it should have negative support. This convention would break many OS's conventions. E.g., NextSTEP | 0x10 gives BSDI. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message