GNU bug report logs -
#18984
Enhancement request: Handling of damaged partition tables
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
>>> Phillip Susi <psusi <at> ubuntu.com> schrieb am 10.11.2014 um 19:15 in Nachricht
<546100AA.1050803 <at> ubuntu.com>:
[...]
>> 1) Instead of saying "Can't have a partition outside the disk!"
>> say _which_ partition you think is outside the disk, and say _why_
>> you think so.
>
> I suppose that could be nice, though when you print the table and have
> a look for yourself it isn't hard to figure out. In your case your
> "disk" is only one sector long so everything is outside of that.
Actually a computer can compare and intersect numeric intervals much faster than I can. Of course up to now we all can do what computers can do, but are we to relieve the computers, or is it the other way 'round?
>
>> 2) Despite of the message "Invalid partition table on
>> /home/wiu09524/Projekte/sect0.0 -- wrong signature 0." the MBR
>> signature is 0x55, 0xaa as expected
>
> It is talking about the extended partition table which it sees as all
> zeroes since you don't have it in the image file, the read failed, and
> you chose to ignore that failure.
That's not obvious from the message. What about "Invalid partition table at sector ### of <device> -- wrong signature..."?
>
>> 3) Instead of saying "Can't have overlapping partitions." say
>> _which_ partitions you think overlap with which other partitions,
>> and perferrably give precise data for the overlap. Parted should
>> not just help secretaries, but technicals also ;-)
>
> Same as above: might be nice but it's pretty easy to figure out by
> looking at the output of print.
See above, too.
>
[...]
>> Finally everything converted to LBAs and then to GB (1024^2 kB):
>> partition #1: 7.875 7.875 796.011 100.007 ( 0.000 /
>> -696.004) partition #2: 7.871 7.875 296.009 635.491 (
>> 0.004 / 339.482) partition #3: 7.875 7.875 96.009 200.000
>> ( 0.000 / 103.991) partition #4: 0.001 7.875 0.001
>> 96.008 ( 7.874 / 96.007)
>>
>> You see that partition #1 (the last entry in the table) features a
>> negative size!
>
> There is no such thing as a negative size since the table lists the
> start and length ( not end ) as unsigned dwords.
OK, my fault (I remembered it incorrectly)!
>
>> It would be great if parted could not only complain, but also
>> suggest how to fix the problems detected, just like fsck does for
>> years.
>
> The fix should be obvious: delete one of the overlapping partitions,
> or shrink the first one. How to do that safely is too involved to
> suggest in a short error message.
This bug report was last modified 10 years and 256 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.