|
=== asac_ is now known as asac |
|
=== pgraner is now known as pgraner_afk |
|
[17:05] <lamont> May 21 09:18:29 mix kernel: [159411.675112] rtc: lost 17 interrupts |
|
[17:06] <lamont> make it stop saying that, mk? |
|
[19:38] <psusi> does anyone know why the kernel was changed to default to defeating host protected areas on disks and why this should not be considered a bug and reverted? |
|
[19:49] <mjg59> psusi: Because the alternative was for people's systems to stop working when they switched from IDE to libata |
|
[19:49] <psusi> mjg59: eh? |
|
[19:49] <mjg59> Turns out that most people consider that a bug |
|
[19:49] <psusi> mjg59: I'm seeing people's systems breaking because of this change |
|
[19:49] <mjg59> psusi: The IDE system deactivated the HPA since, well, forever |
|
[19:49] <psusi> oh really? |
|
[19:50] <mjg59> Yes |
|
[19:50] <mjg59> So people created partitions in the HPA |
|
[19:50] <mjg59> When libata didn't deactivate the HPA, stuff broke |
|
[19:50] <psusi> hrm.... why is that not broken? HPA means you arent supposed to muck with it |
|
[19:50] <mjg59> Because their filesystems now extended into unreachable areas of the disk |
|
[19:50] <psusi> well, yea... but it was broken before and then fixed |
|
[19:50] <mjg59> No |
|
[19:50] <psusi> so we revert to the broken heavior? doesn't seem right |
|
[19:51] <psusi> behavior even |
|
[19:51] <mjg59> There is no way in the universe you can claim that breaking people's filesystems is a fix |
|
[19:51] <psusi> no, the fix was NOT breaking HPA |
|
[19:51] <mjg59> There is no way in the universe you can claim that breaking people's filesystems is a fix |
|
[19:51] <psusi> but if they already had a broken system then fixing it broke their system |
|
[19:52] <mjg59> That's not an acceptable option |
|
[19:52] <mjg59> Which is why upstream behaiour was changed |
|
[19:52] <mjg59> Also, this happened over a year ago |
|
[19:52] <psusi> how is it acceptable to allow them to break their system by overwriting the HPA? |
|
[19:53] <psusi> there may be parts of the bios written there that if we overwrite, the system won't boot |
|
[19:53] <mjg59> Yes, it's acceptable to let people do that |
|
[19:53] <mjg59> No, there will not be parts of the BIOS written there |
|
[19:53] <psusi> there could be... you don't know why the bios protected it |
|
[19:54] <mjg59> Yes, and it could also contain child pornography |
|
[19:54] <psusi> it seems that some vendors put bios extension programs there |
|
[19:54] <mjg59> In which case being able to delete it would be a good thing |
|
[19:54] <psusi> the point is that via HPA, the bios is telling us DON'T TOUCH |
|
[19:54] <mjg59> No, vendors do not put bios extension programs there |
|
[19:55] <psusi> if you as the user want to override that, that's one thing... but doing it by default? |
|
[19:55] <psusi> I have heard of some that do |
|
[19:55] <psusi> there is at least one vendor I have heard of that uses it to store some sort of instant on cd playing program |
|
[19:55] <psusi> so you can play audio cds without booting up fully |
|
[19:55] <mjg59> Yes, it's a filesystem containing Linux |
|
[19:56] <mjg59> It's not a BIOS extension |
|
[19:56] <psusi> right... but it's marked as protected... so then we come and install Ubuntu and trash it |
|
[19:56] <mjg59> So don't trash it |
|
[19:56] <mjg59> The partitioner makes it easy to avoid this |
|
[19:56] <psusi> kind of hard when it just looks like the tail end of free space on the disk |
|
[19:56] <mjg59> No, it'll still look like a partition |
|
[19:56] <psusi> it isn't listed in the partition table since it exists in the hidden part of the disk |
|
[19:57] <mjg59> jpgpls |
|
[19:58] <psusi> though at least in this one person's case, the protected area doesn't appear to contain anything.... but for some reason the bios wanted it protected and it's causing a problem when the disk size does not match what the bios recorded, which was minus the hpa |
|
[19:59] <mjg59> "disk size"? |
|
[20:00] <mjg59> If there's an HPA, the BIOS will still see the HPA |
|
[20:00] <mjg59> It's not altered until Linux starts up |
|
[20:00] <psusi> it appears to record the size without the hpa when it writes the fakeraid metadata |
|
[20:00] <mjg59> Hm. Though, potentially, it would cause problems if the kernel or grub files end up in the HPA |
|
[20:00] <psusi> then linux starts, disables the hpa, and suddenly the disk size is wrong |
|
[20:00] <mjg59> psusi: At which point the BIOS isn't called again, so there's no problem |
|
[20:01] <psusi> yea, there is... the metadata is now in the wrong location |
|
[20:01] <mjg59> What metadata? |
|
[20:01] <mjg59> What do you mean by "wrong location"? |
|
[20:01] <psusi> it's supposed to be the last 2 sectors of the disk... but in this case, it's actually about a meg short of there |
|
[20:01] <psusi> fakeraid metadata |
|
[20:01] <mjg59> What? |
|
[20:01] <mjg59> Ah |
|
[20:01] <psusi> the bios writes it to what IT sees as the last 2 sectors |
|
[20:01] <psusi> but that's just before the HPA starts |
|
[20:01] <mjg59> That's more interesting, but easy to fix |
|
[20:02] <psusi> we lift the HPA and now it's not in the last two sectors |
|
[20:02] <mjg59> Ridiculously retarded BIOS |
|
[20:02] <psusi> probably ;) |
|
[20:02] <psusi> "but it works fine with windows" |
|
[20:02] <mjg59> But, as I said, easy to fix |
|
[20:02] <mjg59> The fakeraid code needs to check both the reported size and the old size |
|
[20:03] <psusi> ack |
|
[20:03] <psusi> hrm.... how would it find the old size? |
|
[20:04] <mjg59> The kernel has the original size |
|
[20:04] <mjg59> It reads it before messing with the HPA |
|
[20:05] <psusi> any idea how one would look that up? |
|
[20:05] <mjg59> In-kernel? Not off-hand. |
|
[20:05] <mjg59> Just grep for hpa in drivers/ata/ |
|
[20:05] <psusi> hrm... guess it's time to do a git clone |
|
[20:05] <mjg59> ANyway, getting into the station now |
|
[20:05] * mjg59 leaves |
|
[21:59] <psusi> mjg59: it appears that the kernel does NOT retain the HPA disk size after lifting the limit |
|
[22:06] <psusi> libata defines the parameter ata_ignore_hpa... can you not just pass ata_ignore_hpa=0 on the kernel command line if it is built as a module? |
|
|