(unknown)

[JB]

Mikkel <mikkel <at> infinity-ltd.com> writes:

> ... 
> What kind of problems would it cause?
> 
> > OSs, e.g.
> >    # fdisk -l /dev/sda
> >    ...
> >    /dev/sda1              63    81920159    40960048+   7  HPFS/NTFS
> >    /dev/sda2   *    81920160   111222719    14651280   a5  FreeBSD
> >    ...
> >    /dev/sda9       216715023   246017519    14651248+  83  Linux
> > 
> >    # dmesg | grep bsd
> >    [    1.550749]  sda2: <bsd: sda10 sda11 sda12 sda13 sda14 >
> > ...

I would refer you to this thread once more where I described and tested them.

But I will do it one more time:

1. Linux has two widely used partition table display/manipulation entries:
   fdisk
   cfdisk
   and there are more of them.
   If none of them show all partitions (inclusive *BSD slices) as in
   an example above, then these entries are fooling users and sysadmins.
   This is lunacy and can be costly. Believe it or not but users rely on
   truthfullness and clarity (nothing shall be hidden) when it comes to
   the one and only one source of a particular info, based on which they make
   decisions.
   What if they decide they need an additional partition and look at fdisk
   for the next available (they do not see hidden *BSD slices) ?
   Is that not dangerous ?
2. I have shown that *BSD slice /dev/<name> can be temporarily mounted (and
   serve as a source of data) and at the same time the same /dev/<name> can
   be used to create a new Linux partition.
   Is that not dangerous ?
3. I have shown that *BSD slice /dev/<name> can be permanently mounted thru
   /etc/fstab (and serve as a source of data) and at the same time the same
   /dev/<name> can be used to create a new Linux partition.
   After that, due to mismatch of superblock/bad magic number that *BSD mount
   will be refused.
   Is that not dangerous ?
   If that /dev/<name> were used to create a new stand-alone UFS partition
   (or anything for that matter that would match UFS superblock/bad magic
   number), perhaps the fstab-base auto mount would be successful, serving who
   knows what data.
   Is that not dangerous ?

JB