Trying to read/write to Vfat/FAT32 partitions
in [Linux Help]
|
Prev: shell programming
Next: lynx - listbox
From: Kevin c. Redden on 10 Apr 2008 22:24 Hi folks: I've been working on a way to read/write to FAT32 partitions on a dualboot Win2k/Debian 4 computer. I got 1 partition which I call the linux bridge, which is formatted to FAT32. I've set up my FSTAB file this way; # /etc/fstab: static file system information. # # <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> proc /proc proc defaults 0 0 /dev/hdb2 / ext3 defaults,errors=remount-ro 0 1 /dev/hdb6 /home ext3 defaults 0 2 /dev/hdb5 none swap sw 0 0 /dev/hda /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,auto 0 0 # linux bridge /dev/hdb1 /mnt/bridge vfat rw,auto,user,noexec,sync,utf8,umask=000,gid=46 0 1 The entries below 'linux bridge' is the stuff I'm working on. I got the current line (/dev/hdb1) from reading on other web sites. This works as a *reader*; meaning I can read any file that I put into it from Windows, however writing from linux is the problem. I touched a text file, and put just a line in it via nano. named it as 'test.txt' I can see it via ls -la, however when I reboot to Windows, It doesn't show up. Nothing I've put in it via linux shows up. Yet both linux and windows sees the file I placed in it from Windows (A simple .GIF file.) I tried this from a SU, and normal user accounts in linux. I get no permission errors writing from the normal user account either. Any advice? -- Kevin C. Redden kcredden(a)299234gmail.com (To write, remove 299234 from the e-mail address - spam control.) --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 080404-0, 04/04/2008 Tested on: 4/10/2008 10:24:06 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com
From: Tom F on 11 Apr 2008 09:20 Kevin c. Redden wrote: > > # /etc/fstab: static file system information. .... > # linux bridge > > /dev/hdb1 /mnt/bridge vfat > rw,auto,user,noexec,sync,utf8,umask=000,gid=46 0 1 All your entries look good to me. I would "gid=users" however. Also, why "noexec" as opposed to "exec"? That's not your problem, just curious. Exec lets you execute files from the HD. -- Tom
From: birre on 11 Apr 2008 10:56 On 2008-04-11 15:20, Tom F wrote: > Kevin c. Redden wrote: >> # /etc/fstab: static file system information. > ... >> # linux bridge >> >> /dev/hdb1 /mnt/bridge vfat >> rw,auto,user,noexec,sync,utf8,umask=000,gid=46 0 1 > > All your entries look good to me. I would "gid=users" however. > > Also, why "noexec" as opposed to "exec"? That's not your problem, just > curious. Exec lets you execute files from the HD. > I'm curious about what to execute from a vfat partition? noexec is only valid for linux software, and how do you identify what you can run or not in a filesystem where all files are marked as executable? In short, noexec is smart, exec is stupid. /bb
From: Tom F on 11 Apr 2008 11:24 birre wrote: > I'm curious about what to execute from a vfat partition? > noexec is only valid for linux software, and how do you identify > what you can run or not in a filesystem where all files are marked > as executable? > > In short, noexec is smart, exec is stupid. Well, that may be. I just figured if he is using it as a "bridge" with windows, he might download something in windows he later wanted to run in Linux and that would make it easier. I suppose that's not a very important point. -- Tom
From: Unruh on 11 Apr 2008 11:27
birre <spamtrap(a)norsborg.net> writes: >On 2008-04-11 15:20, Tom F wrote: >> Kevin c. Redden wrote: >>> # /etc/fstab: static file system information. >> ... >>> # linux bridge >>> >>> /dev/hdb1 /mnt/bridge vfat >>> rw,auto,user,noexec,sync,utf8,umask=000,gid=46 0 1 >> >> All your entries look good to me. I would "gid=users" however. >> >> Also, why "noexec" as opposed to "exec"? That's not your problem, just >> curious. Exec lets you execute files from the HD. >> >I'm curious about what to execute from a vfat partition? >noexec is only valid for linux software, and how do you identify >what you can run or not in a filesystem where all files are marked >as executable? >In short, noexec is smart, exec is stupid. No. YOu execute files that you know are executable. If it is not executable, the system will let you know when you try. If you have no plans to execute any files, use noexec. If you have plans to execute files, use exec. To do anything else is stupid. >/bb |