Re: Linux & FAT32 label

[Pali RohÃr]

On Thursday 30 November 2017 00:21:26 Pali RohÃr wrote:
> On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali RohÃr wrote:
> > > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali RohÃr 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?
> > > 
> > > Also for other people, do any have comments on my proposed solution?
> > 
> > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
> 
> Now I implemented changes for dosfstools project, pull request is there:
> https://github.com/dosfstools/dosfstools/pull/73
> 
> Just waiting for the Andreas response...

Seems... there is no activity since October in dosfstools github project.

Andreas, I have no response from you, are OK?

Just I would like to know if you are interested in changes and if I
should prepare another patches for dosfstools. I just do not want to go
coding and implement something which will be rejected...

> Andy, you wanted some manpage update. I did it in this commit:
> https://github.com/dosfstools/dosfstools/pull/73/commits/3f4f122b7ec8eeb4a0ae0db8e94b8829f51d1163
> Can you check if changes in manpage are OK?

Andy, can you check that manpage update?

-- 
Pali RohÃr
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature