NetBSD Problem Report #41652

From bad@atsec.com  Tue Jun 30 21:36:41 2009
Return-Path: <bad@atsec.com>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [204.152.190.11])
	by www.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E4163B976
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.netbsd.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20090630210021.D900B58@nervous-energy.atsec.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:00:21 +0200 (MEST)
From: bad@bsd.de
Reply-To: bad@bsd.de
To: gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org
Subject: newfs ignores block and frag sizes in disklabel
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.95

>Number:         41652
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       newfs neither respects nor updates the block and frag sizes in disklabel
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    bin-bug-people
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Jun 30 21:40:00 +0000 2009
>Last-Modified:  Wed Jul 01 05:15:02 +0000 2009
>Originator:     Christoph Badura
>Release:        NetBSD 5.0_STABLE iso-image from 20090625 autobuild
>Organization:
bozotic netbsd software testing labs
>Environment:
System: NetBSD  5.x
Architecture: i386
Machine: i386
>Description:

newfs(8) specifies that the defaults are taken from the disklabel.
I have chosen 8K/1k block/frag sizes in the disklabel for partitions.
newfs ignores this for filesystems >1G and uses 16k/2k block/frag sizes.
newfs also fails to update the block/frag sizes in the kernel as the man
page specifes.
>How-To-Repeat:


Create a 4.2BSD partition in the diskabel that is larger than 1GB.
Set the block and frag sizes in the label to some value.
Run newfs on the partition and observe its output.
Use disklabel(8) to print the disklabel and observer that the partition
information hasn't been updated.

Additionaly, there is a garbled sentence at the end of the last paragraph
in the NOTES section of the newfs(8) man-page.

>Fix:

unknown.

>Audit-Trail:
From: David Laight <david@l8s.co.uk>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/41652: newfs ignores block and frag sizes in disklabel
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 00:13:45 +0100

 On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:40:00PM +0000, bad@bsd.de wrote:
 > >Number:         41652
 > >Category:       bin
 > >Synopsis:       newfs neither respects nor updates the block and frag sizes in disklabel
 ...
 > newfs(8) specifies that the defaults are taken from the disklabel.
 > I have chosen 8K/1k block/frag sizes in the disklabel for partitions.
 > newfs ignores this for filesystems >1G and uses 16k/2k block/frag sizes.
 > newfs also fails to update the block/frag sizes in the kernel as the man
 > page specifes.

 IMHO the block/frag sizes don't belong in the disklabel ....

 So maybe just the documentation should be changed.

 	David

 -- 
 David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk

From: "Valeriy E. Ushakov" <uwe@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: PR/41652 CVS commit: src/sbin/newfs
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 02:43:35 +0000

 Module Name:	src
 Committed By:	uwe
 Date:		Wed Jul  1 02:43:35 UTC 2009

 Modified Files:
 	src/sbin/newfs: newfs.8

 Log Message:
 G/c sentence fragment left over from vinum reference (forgotten in 1.69).
 Noticed by bad@ in PR bin/41652


 To generate a diff of this commit:
 cvs rdiff -u -r1.73 -r1.74 src/sbin/newfs/newfs.8

 Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the
 copyright notices on the relevant files.

From: David Holland <dholland-bugs@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/41652: newfs ignores block and frag sizes in disklabel
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 05:13:05 +0000

 On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:15:06PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
  >  > newfs(8) specifies that the defaults are taken from the disklabel.
  >  > I have chosen 8K/1k block/frag sizes in the disklabel for partitions.
  >  > newfs ignores this for filesystems >1G and uses 16k/2k block/frag sizes.
  >  > newfs also fails to update the block/frag sizes in the kernel as the man
  >  > page specifes.
  >  
  >  IMHO the block/frag sizes don't belong in the disklabel ....
  >  
  >  So maybe just the documentation should be changed.

 I agree, but traditionally they're kept there, and since the fields
 exist we need to either honor them or be explicit about ignoring them.
 So it isn't quite that simple.

 -- 
 David A. Holland
 dholland@netbsd.org

>Unformatted:
 		NetBSD 5.99.14 iso-image from 20090627 autobuild

NetBSD Home
NetBSD PR Database Search

(Contact us) $NetBSD: query-full-pr,v 1.39 2013/11/01 18:47:49 spz Exp $
$NetBSD: gnats_config.sh,v 1.8 2006/05/07 09:23:38 tsutsui Exp $
Copyright © 1994-2007 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.