Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-17 Thread Rin Okuyama
At the moment, there is no definite objection to the patch. I would like to commit it in this weekend. Since this option is potentially dangerous, as pointed out by Michael, it will be enabled only for ALL on amd64 and i386, and commented out for other kernel configuration files by default.

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-15 Thread Rin Okuyama
On 2017/02/16 5:47, Michael van Elst wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:16AM +, David Brownlee wrote: On 12 February 2017 at 11:57, Rin Okuyama wrote: Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4). It is exactly what I need! It is more

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-15 Thread Michael van Elst
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:16AM +, David Brownlee wrote: > On 12 February 2017 at 11:57, Rin Okuyama wrote: > > Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4). > > It is exactly what I need! It is more portable than my patch. > > I withdraw the

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-15 Thread David Holland
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:10:11PM -0500, Mouse wrote: > > [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got > > fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good > > thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool. > > What sort of

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-15 Thread David Brownlee
On 12 February 2017 at 11:57, Rin Okuyama wrote: > Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4). > It is exactly what I need! It is more portable than my patch. > I withdraw the patch and the PR. I think that DISKLABEL_EI would still be a good idea -

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-15 Thread Manuel Bouyer
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:10:11PM -0500, Mouse wrote: > > [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got > > fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good > > thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool. > > What sort of things?

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-14 Thread Mouse
> [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got > fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good > thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool. What sort of things? (If you care to say, of course.) I've been using FFS_EI

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-12 Thread Rin Okuyama
Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4). It is exactly what I need! It is more portable than my patch. I withdraw the patch and the PR. Thanks, rin

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-12 Thread Martin Husemann
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:23:52AM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote: > Currently, we have FFS_EI and LFS_EI kernel options, that enable us to > mount UFS partitions written in the different byte order. However, > unfortunately, the system does not recognize disklabels written in the > different byte

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-12 Thread Michael van Elst
dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) writes: >On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:06:35AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > > 5. Does the current FFS_EI allow for creation of opposite-endian > >file systems? I don't see any endian option for newfs(8). >Not that I know of. Also, based on things I saw

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-12 Thread Michael van Elst
p...@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette) writes: >4. Where on the physical device is the wedge configuration saved, >anyway?) There is no special wedge configuration on the disk. Wedges are generated from labels. There is code to handle GPT, MBR and BSD disklabel, the latter is not configured in

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-12 Thread Michael van Elst
rokuy...@rk.phys.keio.ac.jp (Rin Okuyama) writes: >The patch attached to tech-kern/51208 adds DISKLABEL_EI option for ports >using MBR. By this option, the system can mount the disk (image) written >in the different byte order. This should be useful for cross building. >For bi-endian

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-12 Thread David Holland
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:06:35AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > 5. Does the current FFS_EI allow for creation of opposite-endian >file systems? I don't see any endian option for newfs(8). Not that I know of. Also, based on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got fixed), I

Re: DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-11 Thread Rin Okuyama
Thank you very much for your comments. On 2017/02/12 12:06, Paul Goyette wrote: I don't really have any objections, but I would like to clarify the scope of what is being proposed. 1. Does this allow only processing of disk labels that are (a) already written in opposite-endian format? Or

DISKLABEL_EI option for system with MBR

2017-02-11 Thread Rin Okuyama
Hi, I'd like to add DISKLABEL_EI kernel option, cf tech-kern/51208: http://gnats.netbsd.org/51208 Currently, we have FFS_EI and LFS_EI kernel options, that enable us to mount UFS partitions written in the different byte order. However, unfortunately, the system does not recognize disklabels