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@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
