Changing subject, so that there is at least a chance for someone to find
this discussions with a search engine :)
Joanne,
jdow - 28.06.18, 04:57:
> The issue is what happens when one of those disks appears on a 3.1
> system. {^_^}
That is right, so I think the warning about 64 bit support in native OS
is okay, but that issue already exists *without* Linux.
Remember, I created that RDB with Media Toolbox on AmigaOS 4.0. I did
not even use Linux to create that beast :). If it booms in AmigaOS < 4
without NSD64, TD64 or SCSI direct, that would happen with or without
the warning in Linux, even without the disk ever have been seen by a
Linux kernel.
I´d say the warning about support in native OS does not harm, even when
it is about educating Amiga users who, in case they use that large
drives – and I pretty much bet, some of them do –, better know the
limitations beforehand.
I do think the extra kernel option does not make all that much sense,
but I accept it anyway.
Cause if you argue like that, what would need fixing is AmigaOS < 4
without NSD64, TD64 or SCSI direct, but then that is what NSD64 and TD64
was made for more than 10 years ago.
Of course, if a partitioning tool for Linux ever allows to create such
an RDB, it makes sense to add a big fat warning about that. As… I think
would make sense to have in Media Toolbox and AmigaOS partitioning
tools.
However Linux here just reads the RDB, so I´d personally go with the
warning about support in native OS, but spare myself the extra kernel
option stuff.
It is Michael´s call tough, as he submits the patch. And if he chooses
to be on a safer side than this, that is fine with me.
Thanks,
Martin
> On 20180627 01:03, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Dear Joanne.
> >
> > jdow - 27.06.18, 08:24:
> >> You allergic to using a GPT solution? It will get away from some of
> >> the evils that RDB has inherent in it because they are also
> >> features?
> >> (Loading a filesystem or DriveInit code from RDBs is just asking
> >> for
> >> a nearly impossible to remove malware infection.) Furthermore, any
> >> 32
> >> bit system that sees an RDSK block is going to try to translate it.
> >> If you add a new RDB format you are going to get bizarre and
> >> probably
> >> quite destructive results from the mistake. Fail safe is a rather
> >> good notion, methinks.
> >>
> >> Personally I figure this is all rather surreal. 2TG of junk on an
> >> Amiga system seems utterly outlandish to me. You cited another
> >> overflow potential. There are at least three we've identified, I
> >> believe. Are you 100% sure there are no more? The specific one you
> >> mention of translating RDB to Linux has a proper solution in the
> >> RDB
> >> reader. It should recover such overflow errors in the RDB as it can
> >> with due care and polish. It should flag any other overflow error
> >> it
> >> detects within the RDBs and return an error such as to leave the
> >> disk
> >> unmounted or mounted read-only if you feel like messing up a poor
> >> sod's backups. The simple solution is to read each of the variables
> >> with the nominal RDB size and convert it to uint64_t before
> >> calculating byte indices.
> >>
> >> However, consider my inputs as advice from an adult who has seen
> >> the
> >> Amiga Elephant so to speak. I am not trying to assert any control.
> >> Do
> >> as you wish; but, I would plead with you to avoid ANY chance you
> >> can
> >> for the user to make a bonehead stupid move and lose all his
> >> treasured disk archives. Doing otherwise is very poor form.
> >
> > I am pretty confident that larger than 2 TiB disks are fully
> > supported within AmigaOS 4, as I outlined in my other mail.
> >
> > So with all due respect: I used a larger than 2 TiB disk in AmigaOS
> > 4 in 2012 already *just* fine. I even found I had the same
> > questions back then, and researched it. Which lead to this official
> > article back then:
> >
> > http://wiki.amigaos.net/wiki/RDB
> >
> > I am also pretty sure that AmigaOS still uses RDB as partitioning
> > format. They support MBR. I don´t think AmigaOS 4.1 supports GPT.
> > Whether to implement that of course is the decision of AmigaOS 4
> > development team. I am no longer a member of it since some time.
> >
> > Linux m68k should already be able to use disks in GPT format, but
> > you
> > likely won´t be able to read them in AmigaOS, unless there is some
> > third party support for it meanwhile.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> >> {o.o} Joanne "Said enough, she has" Dow
> >>
> >> On 20180626 18:07, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> >>> Joanne,
> >>>
> >>> As far as I have been able to test, the change is backwards
> >>> compatible (RDB partitions from an old disk 80 GB disk are still
> >>> recognized OK). That"s only been done on an emulator though.
> >>>
> >>> Your advice about the dangers of using RDB disks that would have
> >>> failed the current Linux RDB parser on legacy 32 bit systems is
> >>> well
> >>> taken though. Maybe Martin can clarify that for me - was the 2 TB
> >>> disk in question ever used on a 32 bit Amiga system?
> >>>
> >>> RDB disk format is meant for legacy use only, so I think we can
> >>> get
> >>> away with printing a big fat warning during boot, advising the
> >>> user
> >>> that the oversize RDB partition(s) scanned are not compatible with
> >>> legacy 32 bit AmigaOS. With the proposed fix they will work under
> >>> both AmigaOS 4.1 and Linux instead of truncating the first
> >>> overflowing partition at disk end and trashing valid partitions
> >>> that overlap, which is what Martin was after.
> >>>
> >>> If that still seems too risky, we can make the default behaviour
> >>> to
> >>> bail out once a potential overflow is detected, and allow the user
> >>> to
> >>> override that through a boot parameter. I'd leave that decision up
> >>> for the code review on linux-block.
> >>>
> >>> Two more comments: Linux uses 512 byte block sizes for the
> >>> partition
> >>> start and size calculations, so a change of the RDB blocksize to
> >>> reduce the block counts stored in the RDB would still result in
> >>> the
> >>> same overflow. And amiga-fdisk is indeed utterly broken and needs
> >>> updating (along with probably most legacy m68k partitioners).
> >>> Adrian
> >>> has advertised parted as replacement for the old tools - maybe
> >>> this
> >>> would make a nice test case for parted?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:45 PM, jdow <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> If it is not backwards compatible I for one would refuse to use
> >>>> it.
> >>>> And if it still mattered that much to me I'd also generate a
> >>>> reasonable alternative. Modifying RDBs nay not be even an
> >>>> approximation of a good idea. You'd discover that as soon as an
> >>>> RDB uint64_t disk is tasted by a uint32_t only system. If it is
> >>>> for your personal use then you're entirely free to reject my
> >>>> advice and are probably smart enough to keep it working for
> >>>> yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>> GPT is probably the right way to go. Preserve the ability to read
> >>>> RDBs for legacy disks only.
> >>>>
> >>>> {^_^}
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20180626 01:31, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> >>>>> Joanne,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we all agree that doing 32 bit calculations on 512-byte
> >>>>> block
> >>>>> addresses that overflow on disks 2 TB and larger is a bug,
> >>>>> causing
> >>>>> the issues Martin reported. Your patch addresses that by using
> >>>>> the correct data type for the calculations (as do other
> >>>>> partition
> >>>>> parsers that may have to deal with large disks) and fixes
> >>>>> Martin's bug, so appears to be the right thing to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Using 64 bit data types for disks smaller than 2 TB where
> >>>>> calculations don't currently overflow is not expected to cause
> >>>>> new issues, other than enabling use of disk and partitions
> >>>>> larger
> >>>>> than 2 TB (which may have ramifications with filesystems on
> >>>>> these
> >>>>> partitions). So comptibility is preserved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Forcing larger block sizes might be a good strategy to avoid
> >>>>> overflow
> >>>>> issues in filesystems as well, but I can't see how the block
> >>>>> size
> >>>>> stored in the RDB would enforce use of the same block size in
> >>>>> filesystems. We'll have to rely on the filesystem tools to get
> >>>>> that right, too. Linux AFFS does allow block sizes up to 4k (VFS
> >>>>> limitation) so this should allow partitions larger than 2 TB to
> >>>>> work already (but I suspect Al Viro may have found a few issues
> >>>>> when he looked at the AFFS code so I won't say more). Anyway
> >>>>> partitioning tools and filesystems are unrelated to the Linux
> >>>>> partition parser code which is all we aim to fix in this patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you feel strongly about unknown ramifications of any
> >>>>> filesystems on partitions larger than 2 TB, say so and I'll have
> >>>>> the kernel print a warning about these partitions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll get this patch tested on Martin's test case image as well
> >>>>> as
> >>>>> on a RDB image from a disk known to currently work under Linux
> >>>>> (thanks Geert for the losetup hint). Can't do much more without
> >>>>> procuring a working Amiga disk image to use with an emulator,
> >>>>> sorry. The Amiga I plan to use for tests is a long way away from
> >>>>> my home indeed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Michael
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 26.06.18 um 17:17 schrieb jdow:
> >>>>>> As long as it preserves compatibility it should be OK, I
> >>>>>> suppose.
> >>>>>> Personally I'd make any partitioning tool front end gently
> >>>>>> force
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> block size towards 8k as the disk size gets larger. The file
> >>>>>> systems
> >>>>>> may also run into 2TB issues that are not obvious. An unused
> >>>>>> blocks
> >>>>>> list will have to go beyond a uint32_t size, for example. But a
> >>>>>> block
> >>>>>> list (OFS for sure, don't remember for the newer AFS) uses a
> >>>>>> tad
> >>>>>> under 1% of the disk all by itself. A block bitmap is not quite
> >>>>>> so bad. {^_-}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just be sure you are aware of all the ramifications when you
> >>>>>> make
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> change. I remember thinking about this for awhile and then
> >>>>>> determining I REALLY did not want to think about it as my brain
> >>>>>> was getting tied into a gordian knot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> {^_^}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 20180625 19:23, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Joanne,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Martin's boot log (including your patch) says:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jun 19 21:19:09 merkaba kernel: [ 7891.843284] sdb: RDSK
> >>>>>>> (512)
> >>>>>>> sdb1
> >>>>>>> (LNX^@)(res 2 spb 1) sdb2 (JXF^D)(res 2 spb 1) sdb3
> >>>>>>> (DOS^C)(res
> >>>>>>> 2 spb
> >>>>>>> 4)
> >>>>>>> Jun 19 21:19:09 merkaba kernel: [ 7891.844055] sd 7:0:0:0:
> >>>>>>> [sdb]
> >>>>>>> Attached SCSI disk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> so it's indeed a case of self inflicted damage (RDSK (512)
> >>>>>>> means
> >>>>>>> 512
> >>>>>>> byte blocks) and can be worked around by using a different
> >>>>>>> block
> >>>>>>> size.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your memory serves right indeed - blocksize is in 512 bytes
> >>>>>>> units.
> >>>>>>> I'll still submit a patch to Jens anyway as this may bite
> >>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>> yet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:40 PM, jdow <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> BTW - anybody who uses 512 byte blocks with an Amiga file
> >>>>>>>> system is
> >>>>>>>> a famn
> >>>>>>>> dool.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If memory serves the RDBs think in blocks rather than bytes
> >>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> work up to 2 gigablocks whatever your block size is. 512
> >>>>>>>> blocks
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> 2199023255552 bytes. But that wastes just a WHOLE LOT of disk
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> block maps.
> >>>>>>>> Go up to 4096 or 8192. The latter is 35 TB.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> {^_^}
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 20180624 02:06, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Michael Schmitz - 27.04.18, 04:11:
> >>>>>>>>>> test results at
> >>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43511
> >>>>>>>>>> indicate the RDB parser bug is fixed by the patch given
> >>>>>>>>>> there, so if
> >>>>>>>>>> Martin now submits the patch, all should be well?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ok, better be honest than having anyone waiting for it:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I do not care enough about this, in order to motivate myself
> >>>>>>>>> preparing the a patch from Joanne Dow´s fix.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am not even using my Amiga boxes anymore, not even the
> >>>>>>>>> Sam440ep
> >>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> I still have in my apartment.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So RDB support in Linux it remains broken for disks larger 2
> >>>>>>>>> TB,
> >>>>>>>>> unless
> >>>>>>>>> someone else does.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >>>>>>>> linux-m68k" in
> >>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>> More majordomo info at
> >>>>>>>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >>>>>> linux-m68k" in the body of a message to
> >>>>>> majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> More majordomo info at
> >>>>>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >>>> linux-m68k" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> More majordomo info at
> >>>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Martin
