a...@inbox.ru (Aleksej Saushev) writes:
>Matt Thomas writes:
>> On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Mouse wrote:
>>
[...], I wonder if you could attach the HPA area as an additional
partition on the default disklabel, or, if the disk is gpt
partitioned, fake up another partition in the
Matt Thomas writes:
> On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Mouse wrote:
>
>>> [...], I wonder if you could attach the HPA area as an additional
>>> partition on the default disklabel, or, if the disk is gpt
>>> partitioned, fake up another partition in the gpt table.
>>
>> I don't see any reason why no
>> Yes and yes. It simply removes the protection, letting the host see
>> the HPA as what it really is: more space appended to the space
>> advertised to HPA-unaware software.
> I don't really like silently appending the host protected area to the
> unprotected part of the disk. Exposing somethi
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013, Mouse wrote:
What does your support do? Does it let you write over the host
protected area? Does it let you extract what's in there?
Yes and yes. It simply removes the protection, letting the host see
the HPA as what it really is: more space appended to the space
adverti
[...], I wonder if you could attach the HPA area as an additional
partition [...]
>>> I don't see any reason why not. I'm not sure whether you're
>>> proposing that the HPA not be accessible any other way or whether
>>> this is just a default.
>> or make it a ld device attached to the wd
On Aug 11, 9:47pm, Matt Thomas wrote:
} Subject: Re: Sending ATA commands?
}
} On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Mouse wrote:
}
} >> [...], I wonder if you could attach the HPA area as an additional
} >> partition on the default disklabel, or, if the disk is gpt
} >> partitione
On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Mouse wrote:
>> [...], I wonder if you could attach the HPA area as an additional
>> partition on the default disklabel, or, if the disk is gpt
>> partitioned, fake up another partition in the gpt table.
>
> I don't see any reason why not. I'm not sure whether you'
> [...], I wonder if you could attach the HPA area as an additional
> partition on the default disklabel, or, if the disk is gpt
> partitioned, fake up another partition in the gpt table.
I don't see any reason why not. I'm not sure whether you're proposing
that the HPA not be accessible any othe
found any BIOS's that can use this HPA area to load saved
NetBSD rescue images as a way of restoring machines who's disks have been
corrupted?
-Brian
On Aug 11, 7:19pm, Mouse wrote:
} Subject: Re: Sending ATA commands?
} [Brian - sorry for the off-list mail; I didn't notice you copied
[Brian - sorry for the off-list mail; I didn't notice you copied in
tech-kern until I got my copy of the list message!]
> What does your support do? Does it let you write over the host
> protected area? Does it let you extract what's in there?
Yes and yes. It simply removes the protection, let
this work in 5.x or
beyond?
-thanks
-Brian
On Aug 11, 12:42am, Mouse wrote:
} Subject: Re: Sending ATA commands?
} In case anyone cares
}
} Back on
}
} > Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 01:13:12 -0400 (EDT)
}
} I wrote to the list asking about some peculiar issues trying to
} implement HPA support
In case anyone cares
Back on
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 01:13:12 -0400 (EDT)
I wrote to the list asking about some peculiar issues trying to
implement HPA support for 4.0.1. Thanks to a very perceptive kre, I
got over that hump (I got careless and didn't quite follow the
interface specified;
I don't know if anyone remembers enough of 5.x or 4.x to help with
this, but if anyone does and cares to comment
Prompted by seeing a Linux dmesg saying "Host Protected Area detected",
I started trying to teach NetBSD about HPA. (If I can make this work,
DCO support is next.)
I found a PDF d
13 matches
Mail list logo
