Hi Michael.
Michael Schmitz - 27.06.18, 22:13:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Martin Steigerwald
<martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks a lot again for your patch.
> >
> > schmitzmic@xxxxxxxxx - 27.06.18, 03:24:
> >> + if (start_sect > INT_MAX || nr_sects > INT_MAX
> >> + || (start_sect + nr_sects) > INT_MAX) {
> >> + pr_err("%s: Warning: RDB partition
> >> overflow!\n", + bdevname(state->bdev,
> >
> > I´d word this:
> >
> > Warning: RDB partition 32-bit overflow
> >
> > AmigaOS developers can do 64 bit math on a 32 bit operating system.
> > Just like Linux can.
>
> Yes, I realize that. I hadn't gone back through all the mails on the
> subject to find out what the exact requrements are on the AmigaOS
> side.
>
> Just trying to be as terse as possible to keep checkpatch happy :-(
>
> >> b));
> >> + pr_err("%s: start 0x%llX size 0x%llX\n",
> >> + bdevname(state->bdev, b),
> >> start_sect,
> >> + nr_sects);
> >> + pr_err("%s: partition incompatible with 32
> >> bit OS\n", + bdevname(state->bdev,
> >> b)); + }
> >
> > And as stated in my other reply to the patch:
> >
> > partition needs 64 bit disk device support in AmigaOS or AmigaOS
> > like
> > operating systems (NSD64, TD64 or SCSI direct)
>
> I'd probably leave it at 'disk needs 64 bit disk device support on
> native OS', and only print that warning once.
This is fine with me.
> Geert has raised another important point about 64 bt device support -
> all this is moot when the Linux kernel wasn't built with large block
> device support enabled (you'd get the same buggy behaviour as before
> the patch there).
>
> > see my other reply to the patch and my other mails in the
> > "Re: moving affs + RDB partition support to staging?" thread as to
> > why. And for references.
>
> Thanks for collating all the references. Please understand that I
> can't read all of that, and as a simple patch mechanic I won't even
> try to grasp all the subtleties of RDB (I don't even own an Amiga so I
> am quite unlikey to ever use this code path).
I understand that.
> But please also understand that for that reason, I take Joanne's
> advice about backwards compatibility very serious. My patch (actually
> Joanne's originally) changes kernel behaviour from what we consider
> broken (allowing 32 bit overflow in partition address calculations) to
> what we think is the right thing to do. But there might be someone
> out there who used the current behaviour to craft a RDB that aliows
> two separate sets of partitions to coexist on the same disk (one set
> visible to 32 bit disk drivers, before the 32 bit overflow mark, and
> a second set above that mark, visible only to 64 bit drivers.
> Silently changing our parser behaviour might cause said user to now
> trash data past the overflow mark.). This is a little contrived, and
> perhaps I am overcomplicating matters (again), but can't be ruled
> out.
>
> In the interest of least surprises, we have to fix the 32 bit overflow
> (so we can even detect that it would have happened), and give the
> user the chance to carefully consider whether to accept the new
> behaviour. That means refusing to make available any partition that
> would have been affected by such overflow.
That is acceptable for me as I told before. Either mount or refuse to
mount, but do not overflow and mount nonetheless :)
Mind you, I am not using my Amiga machines either at the moment. And I
repurposed the 2 TB disk years ago.
> The user has then all options available - force old behaviour by using
> an older kernel, override the parser to force new behaviour (which we
> all assume is correct), or leave the disk well alone.
Sure.
I would not name the kernel option "eat_my_rdb", but use a less
dramatizing name.
Maybe just: "allow_64bit_rdb" or something like that.
How does the user come to know about this kernel option? Will you print
its name in kernel log?
Thanks,
--
Martin
