Re: Should LDM check be less aggressive?

[Phillip Susi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/20/2012 9:58 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> There are multiple reports of GRUB2 refusing to install on disk
> which was used for LDM in the past. Example is: 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1061255
> 
> I tested behavior of Windows and Linux on a disk with valid LDM 
> signature but manually modified partition table. Both ignore LDM
> labels if disk does not contain SFS partition (0x42) and treat is
> as pure MBR disk. This differs from GRUB2 behavior which always
> checks for LDM label whether SFS partition exists or not.
> 
> Would the following be appropriate? It adds additional check for 
> partition 0x42 before checking for LDM labels.

Looks nice to me.  The kernel has this requirement so grub should as well.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQrUZhAAoJEJrBOlT6nu759uEH/RuU97hAKP2GcAHTkKjvcZqg
Jih1USVExNW/CYzXglXXg8KjYOv7J5xQsj00KZ8LW8f0X+ns76kV1NsrraeJFETI
repkr9FX55+qvUYzbl7PiykoWnC3RUp+TUzZYotZcfc0j1YraDzhAtNsZmDPfvwq
n9Ljo0py/HBPrWU6rjE31voVA8tkYOUz6ztldghDT3x+OJI7w5KnXJgXEOYxqVoJ
Sx9dHsCd/AKO68CwCjVuRHUeQQV1EIlVDKX0ZG21ZM2q79YEJnIChXVSvxbaySRD
yB6W9BNg7hOtFPkJs9pr81qWu3YE9RwyreOLfgGR4qzPpMBQkGsdEMJqlQytq4k=
=2Eyx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----