[parted-devel] [PATCH] Do not discard bootcode from extended partition
Petr Uzel
petr.uzel at suse.cz
Fri Feb 20 10:53:08 UTC 2009
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 02:31:01PM +0000, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> > I thought that valid boot sectors have a checksum or some kind of
> > signature bytes. It might be worth verifying that it is a valid boot
> > sector before blindly using it. If it is not a valid boot sector, one
> > might as well fill it with zeros.
>
> Which field are you thinking of here? There's the (optional) 32-bit
> disk signature at 0x01b8 (immediately following the executable code)
> and the 16-bit MBR signature at 0x01fe.
>
> From what I can see, neither of these would be suitable.
>
> The disk signature is optional and is only intended to be a unique
> identifier. The "MBR signature" is intended to signify a valid MBR but
> it's not based on any kind of checksum - if the field contains
> "0xaa55" it's valid, any other value and it's not.
>
> I just checked a bunch of devices that have valid MSDOS partition
> tables but do not have valid boot code (removable USB devices, some
> auxiliary HDs and a bunch of LUNs on my iscsi test box). All of these
> had the 0xaa55 signature, but no valid bootcode at offset 0, so I
> don't think we can use this as a check.
Hi,
how could we push this forward? Is zeroing bootcode of newly
created extended partition worth the trouble?
Thanks,
--
Best regards / s pozdravem
Petr Uzel, Packages maintainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: puzel at suse.cz
Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 964
190 00 Prague 9 fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz
More information about the parted-devel
mailing list