From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.64]:52018 "EHLO elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752057AbeF1C4x (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:56:53 -0400 Subject: Re: moving affs + RDB partition support to staging? To: Martin Steigerwald , Michael Schmitz Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Matthew Wilcox , David Sterba , Linux FS Devel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jens Axboe , linux-m68k References: <20180425154602.GA8546@bombadil.infradead.org> <8ef4bdc6-4ed0-675e-e26d-0b6e7ab4a00e@earthlink.net> <6247961.nY8s5dWVsg@merkaba> From: jdow Message-ID: <37f25a45-c9b4-da5b-e6ca-054a3b931175@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 19:56:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6247961.nY8s5dWVsg@merkaba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: FFS is limited to 2 GHz file size if you don't want any corruption using fseek(). Otherwise it can go to 4 GHz sort of safely. {^_^} On 20180627 00:57, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Michael Schmitz - 27.06.18, 03:07: >> Joanne, >> >> As far as I have been able to test, the change is backwards compatible >> (RDB partitions from an old disk 80 GB disk are still recognized OK). >> That"s only been done on an emulator though. >> >> Your advice about the dangers of using RDB disks that would have >> failed the current Linux RDB parser on legacy 32 bit systems is well >> taken though. Maybe Martin can clarify that for me - was the 2 TB disk >> in question ever used on a 32 bit Amiga system? > > Sure! Are there actually *any* 64 bit Amiga systems? I am not completely > sure architecture-wise, but the operating system is still just 32-Bit. > > However, on AmigaOS officially since at least 3.5/3.9 there are various > mechanisms to handle 64-bit block numbers for disk devices, called > NSD64, TD64 and scsi direct¹. One of them, NSD 64 in AmigaOS 3.5/3.9, is > part of the operating system. First via SetPatch based update to > Kickstart ROM, but with AmigaOS 4.x its just included. > > [1] http://www.amigawiki.de/doku.php?id=de:system:filesystems_limits > > (I do not agree with maximum filesystem size limits stated there for > Amiga Fast Filesystem (FFS), but well, for early FFS versions they could > have been true, I am pretty sure that at least with higher block sizes > you can have FFS > 2 GiB in size. And I remember having had JFXS and I > think also SFS2 partitions in AmigaOS 4 with more than 100 GiB.) > >> RDB disk format is meant for legacy use only, so I think we can get >> away with printing a big fat warning during boot, advising the user >> that the oversize RDB partition(s) scanned are not compatible with >> legacy 32 bit AmigaOS. With the proposed fix they will work under both >> AmigaOS 4.1 and Linux instead of truncating the first overflowing >> partition at disk end and trashing valid partitions that overlap, >> which is what Martin was after. > > They are compatible. For AmigaOS 4.x I am completely sure, cause I > installed and used the disk there. That was the original motivation for > my Linux bug report back then: I used the disk in AmigaOS 4 *just fine* > and it broke in Linux. I used Media Toolbox in order to create the RDB I > posted back then. > > Its difficult to find proof for my claims online, but here is an > official one: > > http://wiki.amigaos.net/wiki/RDB > > Limits of filesystem sizes may of course be different, but here we are > talking about RDB. > > Also this confirms that RDB only uses 512 byte block size on AmigaOS 4. > > Hmmm, I even created the page back then. Interestingly at about the same > time I made the bug report about the Linux issue. The calculations in > there are not really from me. I bet I copied them over from what other > AmigaOS developers wrote on development mailing lists, at that time. > With their agreement. I think I started my research back then due by my > own question on: Will such a large disk actually work in AmigaOS? > > It is all a long time ago… > >> If that still seems too risky, we can make the default behaviour to >> bail out once a potential overflow is detected, and allow the user to >> override that through a boot parameter. I'd leave that decision up for >> the code review on linux-block. >> >> Two more comments: Linux uses 512 byte block sizes for the partition >> start and size calculations, so a change of the RDB blocksize to >> reduce the block counts stored in the RDB would still result in the >> same overflow. And amiga-fdisk is indeed utterly broken and needs >> updating (along with probably most legacy m68k partitioners). Adrian >> has advertised parted as replacement for the old tools - maybe this >> would make a nice test case for parted? > > I always used AmigaOS based tools to partition in RDB format, cause I > never trusted amiga-fdisk :). > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:45 PM, jdow wrote: >>> If it is not backwards compatible I for one would refuse to use it. >>> And if it still mattered that much to me I'd also generate a >>> reasonable alternative. Modifying RDBs nay not be even an >>> approximation of a good idea. You'd discover that as soon as an RDB >>> uint64_t disk is tasted by a uint32_t only system. If it is for >>> your personal use then you're entirely free to reject my advice and >>> are probably smart enough to keep it working for yourself. >>> >>> GPT is probably the right way to go. Preserve the ability to read >>> RDBs for legacy disks only. >>> >>> {^_^} >>> >>> On 20180626 01:31, Michael Schmitz wrote: >>>> Joanne, >>>> >>>> I think we all agree that doing 32 bit calculations on 512-byte >>>> block >>>> addresses that overflow on disks 2 TB and larger is a bug, causing >>>> the issues Martin reported. Your patch addresses that by using the >>>> correct data type for the calculations (as do other partition >>>> parsers that may have to deal with large disks) and fixes Martin's >>>> bug, so appears to be the right thing to do. >>>> >>>> Using 64 bit data types for disks smaller than 2 TB where >>>> calculations don't currently overflow is not expected to cause new >>>> issues, other than enabling use of disk and partitions larger than >>>> 2 TB (which may have ramifications with filesystems on these >>>> partitions). So comptibility is preserved. >>>> >>>> Forcing larger block sizes might be a good strategy to avoid >>>> overflow >>>> issues in filesystems as well, but I can't see how the block size >>>> stored in the RDB would enforce use of the same block size in >>>> filesystems. We'll have to rely on the filesystem tools to get >>>> that right, too. Linux AFFS does allow block sizes up to 4k (VFS >>>> limitation) so this should allow partitions larger than 2 TB to >>>> work already (but I suspect Al Viro may have found a few issues >>>> when he looked at the AFFS code so I won't say more). Anyway >>>> partitioning tools and filesystems are unrelated to the Linux >>>> partition parser code which is all we aim to fix in this patch. >>>> >>>> If you feel strongly about unknown ramifications of any filesystems >>>> on partitions larger than 2 TB, say so and I'll have the kernel >>>> print a warning about these partitions. >>>> >>>> I'll get this patch tested on Martin's test case image as well as >>>> on a RDB image from a disk known to currently work under Linux >>>> (thanks Geert for the losetup hint). Can't do much more without >>>> procuring a working Amiga disk image to use with an emulator, >>>> sorry. The Amiga I plan to use for tests is a long way away from >>>> my home indeed. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> Am 26.06.18 um 17:17 schrieb jdow: >>>>> As long as it preserves compatibility it should be OK, I suppose. >>>>> Personally I'd make any partitioning tool front end gently force >>>>> the >>>>> block size towards 8k as the disk size gets larger. The file >>>>> systems >>>>> may also run into 2TB issues that are not obvious. An unused >>>>> blocks >>>>> list will have to go beyond a uint32_t size, for example. But a >>>>> block >>>>> list (OFS for sure, don't remember for the newer AFS) uses a tad >>>>> under 1% of the disk all by itself. A block bitmap is not quite >>>>> so bad. {^_-} >>>>> >>>>> Just be sure you are aware of all the ramifications when you make >>>>> a >>>>> change. I remember thinking about this for awhile and then >>>>> determining I REALLY did not want to think about it as my brain >>>>> was getting tied into a gordian knot. >>>>> >>>>> {^_^} >>>>> >>>>> On 20180625 19:23, Michael Schmitz wrote: >>>>>> Joanne, >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin's boot log (including your patch) says: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jun 19 21:19:09 merkaba kernel: [ 7891.843284] sdb: RDSK (512) >>>>>> sdb1 >>>>>> (LNX^@)(res 2 spb 1) sdb2 (JXF^D)(res 2 spb 1) sdb3 (DOS^C)(res 2 >>>>>> spb >>>>>> 4) >>>>>> Jun 19 21:19:09 merkaba kernel: [ 7891.844055] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] >>>>>> Attached SCSI disk >>>>>> >>>>>> so it's indeed a case of self inflicted damage (RDSK (512) means >>>>>> 512 >>>>>> byte blocks) and can be worked around by using a different block >>>>>> size. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your memory serves right indeed - blocksize is in 512 bytes >>>>>> units. >>>>>> I'll still submit a patch to Jens anyway as this may bite others >>>>>> yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:40 PM, jdow > wrote: >>>>>>> BTW - anybody who uses 512 byte blocks with an Amiga file system >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> a famn >>>>>>> dool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If memory serves the RDBs think in blocks rather than bytes so >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> work up to 2 gigablocks whatever your block size is. 512 blocks >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> 2199023255552 bytes. But that wastes just a WHOLE LOT of disk in >>>>>>> block maps. >>>>>>> Go up to 4096 or 8192. The latter is 35 TB. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {^_^} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20180624 02:06, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael Schmitz - 27.04.18, 04:11: >>>>>>>>> test results at >>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43511 >>>>>>>>> indicate the RDB parser bug is fixed by the patch given there, >>>>>>>>> so if >>>>>>>>> Martin now submits the patch, all should be well? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, better be honest than having anyone waiting for it: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not care enough about this, in order to motivate myself >>>>>>>> preparing the a patch from Joanne Dow´s fix. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not even using my Amiga boxes anymore, not even the >>>>>>>> Sam440ep >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> I still have in my apartment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So RDB support in Linux it remains broken for disks larger 2 >>>>>>>> TB, >>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> someone else does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>>>>>> linux-m68k" in >>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> More majordomo info at >>>>>>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>>>> linux-m68k" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>> linux-m68k" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >