vdfuse claims to support raw disk images, but neglects to check the option.

Bug #1019075 reported by Andrew Somerville on 2012-06-28
12
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
virtualbox-ose (Ubuntu)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

vdfuse claims in it's usage note:

    "-t specify type (VDI, VMDK, VHD, or raw; default: auto)"

However it does not handle raw disk images, and fails in the following sequence:

    mkdir mnt
    vdfuse -f partitionedDisk.img mnt/

with:

    "ERROR: cannot autodetect disk type"

I verfied my image and found a work around via:

    mkdir mnt
    xmount --in dd --out vdi partitionedDisk.img mnt/

    mkdir mnt2
    vdfuse -f mnt/partitionedDisk.vdi mnt2

Which produces

    mnt2/Partition1

which is itself mountable.

The offending code seems to be:

    virtualbox-ose/debian/vdfuse/vdfuse.c:265&481

"raw" or rather "RAW" is never checked for.

there is a "RAW" backend for handling the image type.

I'll make a patch if there's a chance that it will be accepted.

patch fixing missing RAW functionality

The attachment "vdfuse_RAW.201206282340UTC.patch" of this bug report has been identified as being a patch. The ubuntu-reviewers team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review the patch. In the event that this is in fact not a patch you can resolve this situation by removing the tag 'patch' from the bug report and editing the attachment so that it is not flagged as a patch. Additionally, if you are member of the ubuntu-reviewers team please also unsubscribe the team from this bug report.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by Brian Murray. Please contact him regarding any issues with the action taken in this bug report.]

tags: added: patch
summary: - vdfuse claims to support raw disk images, but doesn't
+ vdfuse claims to support raw disk images, but neglects to check the
+ option.

I want to make sure this doesn't get lost/forgotten about. Is there a mailing list I can post to to.

There doesn't seem to be an upstream for this portion of the code.

Can I adopt it somehow?

This is really unfortunate that fixes with proposed patches die this way.

How can developers willing to spend time reporting and fixing bugs expect that their effort is worth while when such effort goes unresponded to?

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers