Olf0
commented
2 years ago References for this topic at FSO:
- https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/name-of-sd-card/9639/23
- https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/4-1-0-23-nickname-of-the-sd-card-not-used-in-the-card-filesystem-path-anymore/6284/13
Answer: Not really, because there are too many corner cases when this may go wrong and setting an udisk display name is only of little use, as you already found out.
Other caveats:
- File-system labels (LABEL), partition-names per GPT (PARTLABEL) /
udisk's PARTNAME (wherever that comes from; I would have to look that up) is user-supplied data, which may be (ab)used by an attacker to inject special characters, escape sequences etc. Hence they should be filtered properly, rsp. check if the mechanisms employed do that, otherwise perform the filtering expilcitly. - By default these aforementioned three names / labels are all empty!
- Software may rely on the UUID-based "names" for mount-points, hence they should always exist. These are designed to be unique, hence they are best suited as primary identifier / path.
Hence I am not considering to include this into mount-sdcard.
But a separate tool may be created, which queries these pretty names, then sets the UDISKS_NAME and a symbolic link to the mount-point, utilising one of these pretty names. The order of this evaluation also has to be well considered and these considerations along with their conclusions have to be documented.
As udev deals with devices, not mount-points, this may be hard or even infeasible to achieve this via udev rules. Implementing this as a shell script seems to be adequate. Would need further investigation.
External references:
Given the number of "Why does Sailfish OS mounts cards as hash instead of nickname?" bug reports on Sailfish forum, you might be interested to include the following snippet among your udev rules: