[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171105203542.jgupce2usbtjhbg2@thunk.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:35:42 -0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Andreas Bombe <aeb@...ian.org>, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
util-linux@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrius Štikonas <andrius@...konas.eu>,
Curtis Gedak <gedakc@...il.com>, pavel@....cz
Subject: Re: Linux & FAT32 label
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
>
> Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read
> label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to
> label stored in boot sector. And when fatlabel is changing label it
> updates both locations.
>
> So tools which already uses fatlabel for get & set operations should not
> be affected as setting new label makes boot and root in sync.
>
> New proposed behavior is: Try to read label from the root directory. If
> not exist, then treat disk as without label.
Why is it important to ignore the label from the boot sector? What is
the situation where if there is not a label in the root directory, and
there is a label in the boot sector, it is the Wrong Thing to return it?
For that matter, aside for a diskette from DOS 3.x (where using the
label from the boot sector *is* the right thing), why/when would we
ever have a label in the boot sector and not in the root director?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists