Bug 122413 - Problem creating volumes in extended partition
Summary: Problem creating volumes in extended partition
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: anaconda
Version: rawhide
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeremy Katz
QA Contact: Mike McLean
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2004-05-04 05:01 UTC by Ken Roser
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:10 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-05-06 22:24:46 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ken Roser 2004-05-04 05:01:25 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b)
Gecko/20031208

Description of problem:
Assume that fedora is being installed in an extended partition.  All 3
volumes, /, boot and swap will be added in this extended partition. 
Also assume there's already one volume existing already in this
extended partition and it's at the high end of the partition.

When fedora creates the necessary 3 volumes, it modifies the chain of
extended boot records for the extended partition.  Instead of placing
the new volumes at the beginning of the chain (since they're the first
in the partition), they get linked at the end of the chain.  Although
this produces no observable problems with Fedora, if a partition
editor such as BootIt NG is used to delete this Fedora partitions in
the future, the chain will be interpreted incorrectly due to the
misordering of the volumes.  The symptom with BootIt NG will be that
after deleting the linux volumes, no free space will be shown in the
extended partition.  

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Follow the scenario in the description
2.
3.
    

Actual Results:  EBR chain is in wrong order

Expected Results:  New linux volumes should be first in the EBR chain.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Jeremy Katz 2004-05-06 22:24:46 UTC
This is perfectly legal according to how MSDOS partition tables are
specified.  It's a bug in the third-party program if it can't handle
partition numbers being out of sequence.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.