[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: grub-mkrescue: The blkid LABELs of its ISO 9660, HFS+, FAT filesyste

From: Daniel Kiper
Subject: Re: grub-mkrescue: The blkid LABELs of its ISO 9660, HFS+, FAT filesystems
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:25:47 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)


CC-ing Vladimir...

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 07:24:45PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> during tests about the changes in blkid which are still discussed in
> i noted that a grub-mkrescue ISO for x86 BIOS and EFI shows the same
> filesystem label with its ISO 9660 and HFS+ filesystem superblocks.
>   # lsblk -o NAME,FSTYPE,LABEL /dev/sdd
>   sdd    iso9660 ISOIMAGE
>   ├─sdd1
>   ├─sdd2 vfat
>   ├─sdd3 hfsplus ISOIMAGE
>   └─sdd4
> On Linux this causes a name collision when udev creates /dev/disk/by-label
> links. Usually HFS+ wins. But that's not guaranteed.
> The label identity is currently hardcoded in libisofs. The code stems from
> Vladimir Serbinenko. I am in charge of maintaining it, though.
> See
>   ret = set_hfsplus_name (target, target->image->volume_id,
>                           &target->hfsp_leafs[target->hfsp_curleaf]);
> It looks like the Volume Id from the libisofs ISO 9660 model is set as
> name of HFS+ node target->hfsp_leafs[0]. I guess this is the root node.
> Whatever, it is the only occurence of volume_id in Vladimir's code.
> Thus this line must be the gateway of "LABEL" between libisofs settings
> and HFS+ metadata production. ("ISOIMAGE" is the default Volume Id of
> xorriso.)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So what to do ?
> [ ] Leave both labels identical and continue to confuse users via udev.

It does not seem like reasonable idea.

> [ ] Change HFS+ LABEL automatically by adding "_HFSPLUS" to the upto 32
>     characters of Volume Id.

Where this automatic change should happen? grub-mkrescue or libisofs?

> [ ] Have independent setting and default of HFS+ LABEL in libisofs.
>     This is most flexible but also creates new duties for the users of
>     grub-mkrescue, if both LABELs have to be unique in comparison to other
>     filesystems on other devices.

What kind of duties do you think about?

> I would vote for the middle alternative, if i had any experience with HFS+
> beyond hosting Vladimir's code in libisofs.
> Vladimir ? Anybody else with HFS+ experience ?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Further:
> Should grub-mkrescue give the EFI FAT filesystem a LABEL, too ?
> man mformat says about option -v
>    v      Specifies the volume label. A volume label identifies  the  disk
>           and  can  be  a  maximum  of  11  characters. If you omit the -v
>           switch, mformat will assign no label to the disk.
> On the other hand, no LABEL means no label problems.

I do not see any reason to have labels for EFI FAT filesystem. Do you?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]