Re: Your backup is unsafe!

Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:37:59 +0400 (MSD)


In <5ef05fb67d27bfeb@home-box.demon.co.uk> Robert de Bath (rd103979@home-box.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Nathan Hand wrote:

>> The problem isn't straightforward. Simply stated, VFAT has two names for
>> a file, both are valid, both must be preserved, only one is visible, but
>> both are usable at all times. This does not map onto any UNIX filesystem
>> so some magic is needed.
> Under _Windows_ both are valid. Do you really think this brain dammage
> should be kept in Linux? There is no reason for the short name to be
> visable _except_ when there are interactions with DOS, this comes down
> to dosemu, samba and backups.

The whole idea of VFAT usage is interaction with Windows9X/NT. If you do not
need it then use ext2fs, reiserfs or whatever. And since Windows9X/NT
hounrs short names Linux should as well (Windows9X will be VERY upset if
you'll create new file with LFN "PROGRA~1" along with usual "Program Files"
with short name "PROGRA~1").

>> How about a magic file in each VFAT directory which contains mappings of
>> long to short filenames. You only see the long names using standard UNIX
>> file I/O. Then backups work, because you backup the magic file too, so a
>> restore will put the correct short/long mappings back.
> Yes, I thought of this but the coding would be horrific. I think this would
> work out to be just the same as using a directory by directory sfn_backup,
> and IMO it's better to do it in userspace and keep those horrors from the
> kernel.

Exactly :-) BTW all ioctls are in place...

-
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/