[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171015065901.GD3916@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:59:01 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc: Andreas Bombe <aeb@...ian.org>, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
util-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrius Štikonas <andrius@...konas.eu>,
Curtis Gedak <gedakc@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Linux & FAT32 label
Hi!
> Based on results I would propose following unification:
>
...
> 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
> there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
>
> --> 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.
>
> But due to compatibility with older dosfslabel, which stores
> label only to boot sector, there is need for some fallback. Due
> to point 1. the best seems to be to process also erased label in
> root directory (marked with leading 0xE5) and fallback to boot
> sector only in case label in root directory is missing.
>
> What do you think about it?
4. seems dangerous. Assume we have "OLD" in boot sector and "0xe5-EW" in the directory
entry. The label will change from <none> to "OLD" when the directory entry is reused by
"FOO.TXT", right? That seems surprising / dangerous.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists