Re: Linux & FAT32 label

[Karel Zak]

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> 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?
> 
> Also for other people, do any have comments on my proposed solution?

Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com