lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux & FAT32 label
On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
>
> 1. Read label only from the root directory. If label in root directory
> is missing then disk would be treated as without label. Label from
> boot sector would not be read.
>
> --> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot
> sector. Windows XP even do not update boot sector, so label
> stored in boot sector is incorrect after any change done by
> Windows XP.
>
> This logic is used by all tested MS-DOS and Windows versions,
> plus also by mtools on Linux.
>
> 2. Write label to to both location, boot sector and root directory.
>
> --> Reason: MS-DOS 6.22, MS-DOS 7.10, Windows 98 and also mtools on
> Linux do this. This is also what is written in FAT specification.
>
> It also provides backward compatibility with old dosfslabel
> versions which read label only from boot sector.
>
> 2. Process 'NO NAME ' label in root directory as 'NO NAME' name. Not
> as empty label.
>
> --> Reason: 'NO NAME ' is regular entry in root directory and both
> Windows XP and mlabel handle it in this way.
>
> 3. Process 'NO NAME ' label in boot directory as empty label. Not as
> label with name 'NO NAME'.
>
> --> Reason: On Windows XP when formatting empty disk and label is not
> specified then 'NO NAME ' is stored to boot sector.
>
> Also in FAT specification is written that empty label is stored
> as 'NO NAME '.
>
> With this change we would get compatibility with MS-DOS, Windows (both
> DOS-based and NT-based) and also with Linux mtools, modulo problems DOS
> code page.
>
> There are just two negatives:
>
> 1) Labels set by old dosfslabel versions (which stored them only to boot
> sector) would not be visible. But they are already not visible on
> MS-DOS or Windows machines, and also via mlabel (from mtools).
>
> 2) Behavior of blkid and fatlabel would be changed as both tools have
> different as proposed above, and based on tests they also differ each
> from other.
>
> Andreas, Karel, what do you think about it?

Andreas, any comments? It is OK?

More then month passed... and I would like to move forward.

--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-16 23:45    [W:0.077 / U:1.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site