> >>> But yes, it looks like good idea since right now you can not
> >>> SEE short names but can USE them (rm shortnam.ext will remove
> >>> file, for example; and you can not create new file with
> >>> existing short name, etc).
>
> >> Personally, I see that behaviour as a serious bug in the current
> >> code, as only names that are actually visible should have any
> >> affect. OK, there may be names that are invisible that get
> >> labelled as illegal, and I see no problem with that, but any
> >> other behaviour for names that are not visible is at best a
> >> security problem and at worst a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> > The whole vfat design is "disaster waiting to happen" :-/
>
> The original design is, yes, but then, that came from Microsoft, so
> what can one expect. The Linux implementation isn't too bad in a lot
> of ways, but there are a few tweaks that are needed to polish it up to
> the professional standards that Linus generally requires.
>
You can not workaround general flaws in design. Linux has mostly the same
problem with vfat as Win9X/WinNT itself.
> >>> It's frustrating even without backup problems (in fact backup
> >>> problems are not THAT bad: just use doslfnbk from dosemu :-)
>
> >> Assuming one runs dosemu. I don't.
>
> > You can run dosemu or you can write something like doslfnbk for
> > Linux :-) At your choice. No kernel modifications are needed...
>
> True, but my response to the former is to ask why one should be forced
> to run something like dosemu just for that one task, especially when
> one can back up everything but the vfat partitions without doing so.
>
Since noone fixed tar so far :-) That's all. All needed ioctl's are in
place. I'm happy with dosemu solution and if you are not then you can fix
tar...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/