Open inexorabletash opened 3 months ago
Also, CHECKVOLUME should flag this issue, and maybe mention a file's sparse blocks in its verbose mode.
I think this will fix ADDFILE
, but doesn't help CHECKVOLUME
.
diff --git a/Src/Prodos_Add.c b/Src/Prodos_Add.c
index 483669c..5028640 100644
--- a/Src/Prodos_Add.c
+++ b/Src/Prodos_Add.c
@@ -565,7 +565,9 @@ static void ComputeFileBlockUsage(struct prodos_file *current_file)
for(i=0; i<current_file->data_length; i+=BLOCK_SIZE)
{
/* Recherche les plages de 0 */
- if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= current_file->data_length)
+ if(i == 0)
+ result = 1; /* Block 0 ne doit pas être Sparse */
+ else if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= current_file->data_length)
result = memcmp(¤t_file->data[i],empty_block,BLOCK_SIZE);
else
result = memcmp(¤t_file->data[i],empty_block,current_file->data_length-i);
@@ -586,7 +588,9 @@ static void ComputeFileBlockUsage(struct prodos_file *current_file)
for(i=0; i<current_file->resource_length; i+=BLOCK_SIZE)
{
/* Recherche les plages de 0 */
- if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= current_file->resource_length)
+ if(i == 0)
+ result = 1; /* Block 0 ne doit pas être Sparse */
+ else if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= current_file->resource_length)
result = memcmp(¤t_file->resource[i],empty_block,BLOCK_SIZE);
else
result = memcmp(¤t_file->resource[i],empty_block,current_file->resource_length-i);
@@ -883,7 +887,9 @@ static WORD CreateSaplingContent(struct prodos_image *current_image, struct prod
for(i=0,j=1,k=0; i<data_length; i+=BLOCK_SIZE,k++)
{
/* Recherche les plages de 0 */
- if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= data_length)
+ if(i == 0)
+ is_empty = 0; /* Block 0 ne doit pas être Sparse */
+ else if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= data_length)
is_empty = !memcmp(&data[i],empty_block,BLOCK_SIZE);
else
is_empty = !memcmp(&data[i],empty_block,data_length-i);
@@ -1006,7 +1012,9 @@ static WORD CreateTreeContent(struct prodos_image *current_image, struct prodos_
for(i=0,j=index_data,k=0,l=0; i<data_length; i+=BLOCK_SIZE,k++)
{
/* Recherche les plages de 0 */
- if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= data_length)
+ if(i == 0)
+ is_empty = 0; /* Block 0 ne doit pas être Sparse */
+ else if(i+BLOCK_SIZE <= data_length)
is_empty = !memcmp(&data[i],empty_block,BLOCK_SIZE);
else
is_empty = !memcmp(&data[i],empty_block,data_length-i);
Here's a hacky warning that can be added. Not scoped to CHECKVOLUME
but maybe it's better this way?
diff --git a/Src/Dc_Prodos.c b/Src/Dc_Prodos.c
index c979036..8dd6c29 100644
--- a/Src/Dc_Prodos.c
+++ b/Src/Dc_Prodos.c
@@ -1090,6 +1090,9 @@ static int GetFileDataResourceSize(struct prodos_image *current_image, struct fi
if(tab_block[i] == 0)
file_entry->nb_sparse++;
+ if(tab_block[0] == 0)
+ logf_error(" Warning : Block 0 is sparse in file: '%s'.\n", file_entry->file_path);
+
/* Table des blocs utilisés */
file_entry->tab_used_block = BuildUsedBlockTable(nb_block,tab_block,nb_index_block,tab_index_block,&file_entry->nb_used_block);
if(file_entry->tab_used_block == NULL)
@@ -1180,6 +1183,8 @@ static int GetFileDataResourceSize(struct prodos_image *current_image, struct fi
if(tab_block[i] == 0)
file_entry->nb_sparse++;
+ // TODO: Warn if data fork block 0 is sparse?
+
/* Table des blocs utilisés (Data) */
tab_used_block_data = BuildUsedBlockTable(nb_block,tab_block,nb_index_block,tab_index_block,&nb_used_block_data);
if(tab_used_block_data == NULL)
@@ -1250,6 +1255,8 @@ static int GetFileDataResourceSize(struct prodos_image *current_image, struct fi
if(tab_block[i] == 0)
file_entry->nb_sparse++;
+ // TODO: Warn if resource fork block 0 is sparse?
+
/* Table des blocs utilisés (Resource) */
tab_used_block_resource = BuildUsedBlockTable(nb_block,tab_block,nb_index_block,tab_index_block,&nb_used_block_resource);
if(tab_used_block_resource == NULL)
Note that adding code specifically to CHECKVOLUME
would be more intrusive as the table of all a file's blocks (tab_block
in the above code) is not persisted outside of the GetFileDataResourceSize() call. The file_descriptive_entry
struct used in CHECKVOLUME
only holds the used blocks (tab_used_block
) so the data is not present. We could persist the whole list but that's a lot of not fun C memory management; we could alternately just add a flag to the struct for just this case. But the simple warning seems okay to me.
One thing I'm not sure about - for GS/OS "extended" files - with a data fork and a resource fork - both forks are managed as separate effectively separate seed/sapling/tree. Is the first block of either of those permitted to be "sparse"? I'm guessing no, but I haven't found anything definitive yet in APDA docs.
CreateSaplingContent()
and CreateTreeContent()
above should be revised to only apply when creating actual files, and the required block counts in ComputeFileBlockUsage()
should similarly be modified.Hi @inexorabletash! Thanks very much for the detailed report!! Would you be so kind as to pull request the patches? I think the rationale about the warnings / first block assumption make sense.
One thing I'm not sure about - for GS/OS "extended" files - with a data fork and a resource fork - both forks are managed as separate effectively separate seed/sapling/tree. Is the first block of either of those permitted to be "sparse"? I'm guessing no, but I haven't found anything definitive yet in APDA docs.
I did some sleuthing in the toolbox reference and found this:
I am confused about the "empty" semantics (see CreateResourceFile
). I read this as: an empty resource fork implies a valid header that points to a valid resource map with no entries. In the case of a sparse block would/should it read the 0s and determine that the header+map are invalid? Would it crash?
My guess is that it isn't inherently prohibited but would probably not be a valid usage in the eyes of the resource manager.
PR added!
I chatted with @fadden on Slack and he said he'd had similar issues in CiderPress (https://github.com/fadden/ciderpress/issues/49) which he fixed, and for "extended" files added some similar checks to CiderPress2 (here, here) so I think at least these tools are aligned with the proposed changes here.
Repro:
Now mount a ProDOS-8 system disk (2.0.3, 2.4.3, shouldn't matter) and the
tmp.po
disk and run BASIC.SYSTEM:Back to the shell:
Ooops! For even more fun, go back to BASIC.SYSTEM:
Per ProDOS-8 Technical Reference Manual:
So it appears Cadius is violating this filesystem assumption, and it makes ProDOS very sad.