Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 02:43:02 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Riccardo Torrini <riccardo@torrini.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Subject: Re: Trivial patch: fdisk doesn't recognize my partitions Message-ID: <p05200f26ba10b7cdec2f@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021202080637.riccardo@torrini.org> References: <XFMail.20021202080637.riccardo@torrini.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:06 AM +0100 12/2/02, Riccardo Torrini wrote:
>
>> WHY ARE WE NOT RESPECTING THE DECISION TO HIDE THE THINGS?
>> A user installed the software doing the hiding on purpose.
>> The software changed the ID hide it, on purpose.
>> Windows ignores these partitions -- on purpose.
>
>I'm really sorry for creating that a mess, I started this
>thread only because fdisk recognize _OTHER_ hidden partition
>and I would like to add hidden FAT32 to that _existing_ list.
>
>Sorry for wasting your time. :(
The thread is not necessarily a waste of time, but it sounded
like some people might want freebsd to *do* something with that
information, instead of just displaying it. That is a
particularly scary idea to me right now, as I have a system
with a whole bunch of freebsd installs on it, and I do hide
some of those freebsd partitions from other freebsd installs.
I am sure I am overly-sensitive to that particular idea.
>Only for this I added 0x1B/0x1C as hidden version of 0x0B/0x0C.
>
>real ,{0x0B, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT"}
>myidea ,{0x1B, "Hidden DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT"}
>
>real ,{0x0C, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT (LBA)"}
>myidea ,{0x1C, "Hidden DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT (LBA)"}
This still sounds a little too definitive to me, as if we are
absolutely sure what that partition is. I think that's where
some of the debate came from. I (for one) wouldn't be quite so
jumpy about the idea, if we changed it to:
real ,{0x0B, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT"}
gad-idea ,{0x1B, "Possibly a Hidden DOS or Windows 95, FAT32"}
real ,{0x0C, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT (LBA)"}
gad-idea ,{0x1C, "Possibly a Hidden DOS or Windows 95, FAT32 (LBA)"}
I wouldn't mind there being an informational message in fdisk
like that, as long as it is clear the system will not try to do
anything with these hidden partitions.
Note that a partition might have an id like this because the
partition-table itself got clobbered, and the actual partition
is *not* the hidden version of some other partition-type. For
the case of a user who did explicitly hide some partition, they
should know it's hidden and should not need much of a reminder
from fdisk. For a user who doesn't understand why some partition
just "disappeared", it could be a bad idea if fdisk tells that
user the partition is "hidden", and thus the user blindly changes
the partition id to "un-hide" it, when they never hid it in the
first place. That's the part I'm gunshy about, particularly if
we were to follow the suggestion made earlier in this thread,
that we just turn off x'10' from an unrecognized ID and see if
that matched some recognized ID.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05200f26ba10b7cdec2f>