Re: iso9660 vs udf

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:05:32 +0530 (IST) Satyam Sharma wrote:

> Hi Andries,
> 
> 
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Andries E. Brouwer wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:28AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > 
> > > > > On the other hand, this filesystem announces itself as UDF
> > > > > ("CD-RTOS" "CD-BRIDGE" "CDUDF File System - Adaptec Inc"),
> > > > > perhaps the kernel code should be more robust.
> > > 
> > > Could you send the complete dmesg log, and what you mean with filesystem/
> > > kernel (incorrectly?) announcing it as UDF here ... I agree with Jan,
> > > this sounds like an issue with mount(8) to me.
> > 
> > You already got the relevant part of the dmesg log. Slightly more below.
> 
> > Failed mount:
> > UDF-fs INFO UDF 0.9.8.1 (2004/29/09) Mounting volume 'Wisk1956-82', timestamp 2006/03/07 16:26 (1078)
> > udf: udf_read_inode(ino 547) failed !bh
> > UDF-fs: Error in udf_iget, block=1, partition=1
> 
> Ok, like said, this comes from udf_fill_super(), but which shouldn't
> have been called for this CD in the first place -- i.e. mount(8) shouldn't
> have tried to mount a non-UDF filesystem as UDF (unless explicitly asked
> as such). I was actually asking for the logs explaining why you thought
> the _kernel_ incorrectly "announced" it as an UDF filesystem.
> 
> Hmm ... those "CD-RTOS", "CD-BRIDGE" and "CDUDF File System - Adaptec Inc"
> bits are not dmesg output, are they? Looks like "hwinfo --cdrom" or
> "isoinfo" or some such.
> 
> > I think the filesystem can be treated both as iso9660 and as udf,
> > at least that is what I seem to recall CD-BRIDGE means.  Thus,
> > if the kernel cannot mount it as udf, I think it is a kernel flaw.
> > Given that kernel flaw, and the fact that mounting as iso9660 works,
> > mount(8) could work around the kernel problem by guessing iso9660.
> > But maybe we should first try to fix the kernel.
> 
> I don't think that is what CD-BRIDGE means -- so no kernel flaw :-)
> What happened here is simply that in the absence of a "-t" option,
> mount(8) defaulted (probably due to incorrect heuristics?) to UDF for
> some reason, thereby obviously failing. I don't know who maintains
> mount(8) / util-linux package, or do distributions have their own
> maintainers these days (?)

Hi,

Adrian took over util-linux, but hasn't made any releases lately,
so one of the RHAT developers is maintaining util-linux-ng:
  http://userweb.kernel.org/~kzak/util-linux-ng/


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***