hal, ntfs, and 10.0-RC3

Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 23:23:23 UTC 2014


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus at marcuscom.com>wrote:

> On 1/6/14, 5:50 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus at marcuscom.com
> > <mailto:marcus at marcuscom.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 1/6/14, 1:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >     > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Joe Marcus Clarke
> >     <marcus at marcuscom.com <mailto:marcus at marcuscom.com>
> >     > <mailto:marcus at marcuscom.com <mailto:marcus at marcuscom.com>>>
> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     On 1/6/14, 2:01 AM, Alberto Villa wrote:
> >     >     > 2014/1/6 Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:rkoberman at gmail.com>
> >     >     <mailto:rkoberman at gmail.com <mailto:rkoberman at gmail.com>>>:
> >     >     >> Since I updated to 10.0-RC3 (from 9), hald no longer works
> with
> >     >     my ntfs
> >     >     >> partitions. I can mount them manually with ntfs-3g, but
> >     when not
> >     >     mounted,
> >     >     >> hal does not see them at all.
> >     >     >>
> >     >     >> Might this be fall-out of the removal of ntfs (read-only)
> >     >     support? I have
> >     >     >> not looked through the hald sources to see how it detects
> these
> >     >     slices. I
> >     >     >> do find it interesting that mounting one NTFS file system
> >     causes
> >     >     all of the
> >     >     >> other ones appear to hald.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > I've done some work on HAL in past months, so I have a view
> >     on the
> >     >     matter.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > HAL uses sysctl for disks detection, so it's up to the
> >     system to list
> >     >     > all the available drives. I'll try to have a look in next
> >     days, but my
> >     >     > wild guess (since I've not been using ntfs-3g for years) is
> that
> >     >     > ntfs-3g unloads its module when all mounts are removed, thus
> >     making
> >     >     > the drives undetectable again. Is that correct?
> >     >
> >     >     HAL uses libvolume_id to taste the volumes to determine the
> >     file system
> >     >     type.  It relies on sysctl to enumerate the disks and volumes
> >     as you've
> >     >     pointed out.  What does sysctl -b kern.geom.conftxt say?  Each
> >     partition
> >     >     listed there should go through libvolume_id detection.
> >     >
> >     >     Joe
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Joe,
> >     >
> >     > Looks good to me, but hald does not seem to see it:
> >     >
> >     > 0 DISK ada0 750156374016 512 hd 1 sc 63
> >     > 1 LABEL diskid/DISK-WD-WX21A61N8718 750156374016 512 i 0 o 0
> >     > 2 PART diskid/DISK-WD-WX21A61N8718s4 16833839104 512 i 4 o
> >     733319528448
> >     > ty ntfs xs MBR xt 7
> >     > 2 PART diskid/DISK-WD-WX21A61N8718s3 241172480000 512 i 3 o
> >     492147048448
> >     > ty ebr xs MBR xt 15
> >     > 3 PART diskid/DISK-WD-WX21A61N8718s5 241171431424 512 i 1 o
> 1048576 ty
> >     > ntfs xs MBREXT xt 7
> >     > 2 PART diskid/DISK-WD-WX21A61N8718s2 490887708672 512 i 2 o
> 1259339776
> >     > ty ntfs xs MBR xt 7
> >     > 2 PART diskid/DISK-WD-WX21A61N8718s1 1258291200 512 i 1 o 1048576
> ty
> >     > ntfs xs MBR xt 7
> >     > 1 PART ada0s4 16833839104 512 i 4 o 733319528448 ty ntfs xs MBR xt
> 7
> >     > 2 LABEL ntfs/Lenovo_Recovery 16833839104 512 i 0 o 0
> >     > 1 PART ada0s3 241172480000 512 i 3 o 492147048448 ty ebr xs MBR xt
> 15
> >     > 2 PART ada0s5 241171431424 512 i 1 o 1048576 ty ntfs xs MBREXT xt 7
> >     > 1 PART ada0s2 490887708672 512 i 2 o 1259339776 ty ntfs xs MBR xt 7
> >     > 2 LABEL ntfs/Windows7_OS 490887708672 512 i 0 o 0
> >     > 1 PART ada0s1 1258291200 512 i 1 o 1048576 ty ntfs xs MBR xt 7
> >     > 2 LABEL ntfs/SYSTEM_DRV 1258291200 512 i 0 o 0
> >     > # lshal | grep ada0
> >     >   block.device = '/dev/ada0'  (string)
> >     >   freebsd.device_file = '/dev/ada0'  (string)
> >     >
> >     > So hald sees the disk, but none of the partitions (slices). Could
> >     the "2
> >     > PART ada0s5" be messing things up? The disk has only four slices
> (it's
> >     > MBR formatted). I think I will boot Windows and see wat it says
> about
> >     > the partitioning.
> >     > # gpart show ada0
> >     > =>        63  1465149105  ada0  MBR  (699G)
> >     >           63        1985        - free -  (993K)
> >     >         2048     2457600     1  ntfs  (1.2G)
> >     >      2459648   958765056     2  ntfs  (457G)
> >     >    961224704   471040000     3  ebr  (225G)
> >     >   1432264704    32878592     4  ntfs  (16G)
> >     >   1465143296        5872        - free -  (2.9M)
> >     > Slice 1 is the weird SYSTEM_DRV, 2 is Windows7_OS, 3 is an exfat
> file
> >     > system named "Media", and 4 is the "Lenovo_Recovery" file system.
> But
> >     > geom sees a mysterious fifth one that it says is NTFS??? Still, a
> soon
> >     > as I mount the seconds slice, hald "sees" all of them.
> >     > --
> >     > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
> >     > E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com <mailto:rkoberman at gmail.com>
> >     <mailto:rkoberman at gmail.com <mailto:rkoberman at gmail.com>>
> >
> >     I don't suppose you have a 9.X output of the conftxt?  This is one
> area
> >     where HAL could use an update to use confxml or the like.  It's tied
> to
> >     the output of conftxt and thus the format of it.  I have a feeling
> this
> >     format is different.  I'll have to look over the code...
> >
> > Nope. I'm afraid I blew away my 9 backup yesterday to prep to update to
> > RC4. And, to make matters worse,  after re-booting, I can no longer get
> > my network to run so my system is pretty useless until I can figure out
> > what I messed up. (Also had to fix a flat on my bike. Guess it's just
> > not my day.)
> >
> > Using confxml would make a lot of sense, but it does not look like HAL
> > has much of a future. Is it used on MATE? Pretty sure that it is not on
> > Gnome3.
>
> In hf-storage.c in hald/freebsd, go to line 431.  Change this "if" block
> to:
>
>       if ((! strcmp(fields[1], "LABEL") ||
>           ! strcmp(fields[1], "BSD") ||
>           ! strcmp(fields[1], "PART")) &&
>           (! strncmp(fields[2], "ufsid/", strlen("ufsid/")) ||
>            ! strncmp(fields[2], "ufs/", strlen("ufs/"))
>            ! strncmp(fields[2], "diskid/", strlen("diskid/"))))
>
> Rebuild hal, and see if that helps.
>
> Joe
>

Joe,

Shouldn't there be an OR (||) after the next to last line?  (I'm going to
assume so and build that way.)

Thanks!
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com


More information about the freebsd-gnome mailing list