[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-04-04 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
[Expired for util-linux (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.] ** Changed in: util-linux (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Expired -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-02-03 Thread DiagonalArg
Phillip - Thanks for this explanation. While I'm willing to look into the first two, please first note that (3) clearly does not hold. If you look in the syslog I linked (above), you will see repeatedly: Jan 8 18:27:08 Tyan-S2927 kernel: [2.804642] sdc: p2 size 1157233300 extends beyond

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-02-02 Thread Phillip Susi
Sorry, in #2 make that "is alphanumeric". -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531404 Title: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks To

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-02-02 Thread Phillip Susi
The kernel code is looking for: 1) Each partition has the 1 bit set in its flags byte 2) Each partition's ID bytes are all ascii numbers 3) Each partition starts and ends within the bounds of the disk When these conditions are met, it sets up the partitions and states that the partition table

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-31 Thread DiagonalArg
** Changed in: util-linux (Ubuntu) Status: Invalid => New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531404 Title: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-31 Thread DiagonalArg
Phillip, the Atari Partition Table spec is located here: http://drac030.krap.pl/APT_spec.pdf You will notice that the header entry (bottom of p.2 to top of p.3) has a signature at offset 1 ("APT"). It also has a sanity check at offset 5. In addition, each partition entry points to both the

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-26 Thread Phillip Susi
It seems that your random data just happens to look like an Atari partition table to the kernel. Parted and ( it would seem ) blkid do not support this format so they don't recognize any partitions, but the kernel does, and so gives you partitions. ** Changed in: util-linux (Ubuntu)

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-14 Thread Phillip Susi
Did you reboot after filling the drive with random data? Also please run sudo blkid -p /dev/sda ( or whichever disk is effected ) and post the output. ** Changed in: util-linux (Ubuntu) Status: New => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-14 Thread DiagonalArg
Yes, I have rebooted many times. Right now, I'm using them in a working system. What's more, I have two systems prepared similarly, one with raid and one without, and they are showing exactly the same problem. Here, have a look at one of these systems (raid). All the disks sd{a,b,c} are random

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-14 Thread DiagonalArg
Here, the formatting is slightly better in this pastebin: http://pastebin.com/dRh9RCfM -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1531404 Title: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-14 Thread DiagonalArg
Also, have a look at the syslog: http://paste.ubuntu.com/14498427/ In addition to searching for /dev/sd{a,b,c}, you can also search for the word "truncate" in there. ** Changed in: util-linux (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => New -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-08 Thread DiagonalArg
apport information ** Tags added: apport-collected wily ** Description changed: I have two 2T disks with no partition table and which have been filled with random data. GNU parted shows nothing on this disk: GNU Parted 3.2 Using /dev/sda Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-06 Thread DiagonalArg
Because of this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1531478 I am not able to run apport to collect system data. (Apport needs an ok through the browswer.) If anyone has another way of doing it, I'm happy to take suggestions. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-06 Thread DiagonalArg
It's not really a linux utility problem, nor a gnome-disk-utility problem. Whatever is identifying devices is making a mistake. ** Package changed: ubuntu => util-linux (Ubuntu) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.

[Bug 1531404] Re: nonexistent partition in /dev, & lsblk/disk util misbehaving with randomized disks

2016-01-06 Thread DiagonalArg
Prompted by a chat on #ubuntu-bugs, I'll point this out: (1) Since an MBR has a signature at the end, 0x55AA, then what we're seeing should not be happening. It's possible in all but 1 in 65536 cases to definitively identify that there is no partition table on the disk. (2) Even in that small