From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.10533.1597133155964094601 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 01:05:56 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: intel.com, ip: 192.55.52.93, mailfrom: ray.ni@intel.com) IronPort-SDR: TIGWsS9ikGuYwtO9NrqzT2LkgxnBMcOhyIVY1/uty58xwEymlF/m24oKa+v5kAa2Vq2kxEIp8K orA8hLfX3FFg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9709"; a="151364101" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,460,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="151364101" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Aug 2020 01:05:54 -0700 IronPort-SDR: MYGItZY9e7b+q6xdtN9Eegrv8C+Mw+mPugrzdoRgOCO65CFRDoMrs+i47KskEtRkopU1hOYJCf s2msg2jPntCA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,460,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="334496433" Received: from fmsmsx603-2.cps.intel.com (HELO fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.18.84.213]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2020 01:05:54 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) by fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 01:05:53 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.199) by fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 01:05:53 -0700 Received: from shsmsx154.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.54) by fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 01:05:53 -0700 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.70]) by SHSMSX154.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.115]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:05:50 +0800 From: "Ni, Ray" To: "Gao, Zhichao" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" CC: "Wang, Jian J" , "Wu, Hao A" , Gary Lin , Andrew Fish Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] MdeModulePkg/PartitionDxe: Remove the check for special MBR Thread-Topic: [PATCH 2/3] MdeModulePkg/PartitionDxe: Remove the check for special MBR Thread-Index: AQHWb6q0s+HfU6gulEGX2cqR98vV56kyjQEA Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:05:49 +0000 Message-ID: <734D49CCEBEEF84792F5B80ED585239D5C66894E@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20200811064302.33188-1-zhichao.gao@intel.com> <20200811064302.33188-3-zhichao.gao@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20200811064302.33188-3-zhichao.gao@intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.5.1.3 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: ray.ni@intel.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Zhichao, Can you please just revert the fix you recently added? > -----Original Message----- > From: Gao, Zhichao > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:43 PM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io > Cc: Wang, Jian J ; Wu, Hao A ;= Ni, Ray ; Gary Lin > ; Andrew Fish > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] MdeModulePkg/PartitionDxe: Remove the check for spec= ial MBR >=20 > REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2823 >=20 > Follow the spec definition, the ISO 9660 (and UDF) would be > checked before the MBR. So it is not required to skip such > MBR talbe that contian the entire block device. >=20 > Cc: Jian J Wang > Cc: Hao A Wu > Cc: Ray Ni > Cc: Gary Lin > Cc: Andrew Fish > Signed-off-by: Zhichao Gao > --- > .../Universal/Disk/PartitionDxe/Mbr.c | 19 ------------------- > 1 file changed, 19 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Disk/PartitionDxe/Mbr.c b/MdeModulePk= g/Universal/Disk/PartitionDxe/Mbr.c > index 3830af1ea7..822bf03e92 100644 > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Disk/PartitionDxe/Mbr.c > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Disk/PartitionDxe/Mbr.c > @@ -55,25 +55,6 @@ PartitionValidMbr ( > StartingLBA =3D UNPACK_UINT32 (Mbr->Partition[Index1].StartingLBA); > SizeInLBA =3D UNPACK_UINT32 (Mbr->Partition[Index1].SizeInLBA); >=20 > - // > - // If the MBR with partition entry covering the ENTIRE disk, i.e. st= art at LBA0 > - // with whole disk size, we treat it as an invalid MBR partition. > - // > - if ((StartingLBA =3D=3D 0) && > - (SizeInLBA =3D=3D (LastLba + 1))) { > - // > - // Refer to the http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/bionic/man8/mk= udffs.8.html > - // "WHOLE DISK VS PARTITION" > - // Some linux ISOs may put the MBR table in the first 512 bytes fo= r compatibility reasons with Windows. > - // Linux kernel ignores MBR table if contains partition which st= arts at sector 0. > - // Skip it because we don't have the partition check for UDF(El To= rito compatible). > - // It would continue to do the whole disk check in the UDF routine= . > - // > - DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "PartitionValidMbr: MBR table has partition en= try covering the ENTIRE disk. Don't treat it as a > valid MBR.\n")); > - > - return FALSE; > - } > - > if (Mbr->Partition[Index1].OSIndicator =3D=3D 0x00 || SizeInLBA =3D= =3D 0) { > continue; > } > -- > 2.21.0.windows.1