Hi Martin, Christian,

Am 01.07.2023 um 09:17 schrieb Michael Schmitz:

quoted

quoted

By reverting my patch, you just reintroduce the old bug, which could
result in mis-parsing the partition table in a way that is not
detected by inane values of partition sizes as above, and as far as I
recall this bug was reported because it did cause data corruption. Do
I have that correct, Martin? Do you still have a copy of the
problematic RDB from the old bug report around?

It is in the first attachment of the bug report I mentioned above. The
bug the patch fixed.

Thanks, I'll get it from there.

Confirmed the bug on that RDB block, also that my proposed patch fixes 
it, at least as far as that's possible to show with a sparse image file.

Now I note that this patch will actually treat any partition block 
address beyond the 31 bit limit as end of the linked list, but that's 
been the behaviour of Linux RDB partitions since very early on, so I see 
no reason to change that.

The RDB format description URL that appears in one of your messages from 
the 2012 thread has gone dead. I'll try to find it on Wayback later. In 
the meantime, I will submit a patch to fix the new bug ... We can has 
out details in the inevitable review process.

Cheers,

	Michael