[syslinux] Looking for testers and advise about ISOLINUX within ISO 9660

[H. Peter Anvin]

Thomas Schmitt wrote:
 >
> Questions which arised during testing:
> 
> - Should we disable version numbers and mandatory
>   dots in the ISO 9660 filenames ?
> 
>   There are texts around in the web which demand this
>   but our boot experiments worked although we kept
>   those features as prescribed by the ECMA-119 specs.

Not by default.

> 
> - Is it normal that existing BIOSes violate the
>   El Torito specification by reading the boot record
>   from the _first_ session rather than from the _last_
>   session (i.e last_session_start_lba + 0x11) ?
> 

It's BIOSes.  Of course they violate the spec.

> - How to recognize an existing ISOLINUX boot image after
>   having detected an El Torito boot record ?
> 
>   The record leads us to the isolinux.bin file. Is there
>   a reliable signature in it ?
>   E.g. is this hardcoded or is it user defined:
>   0001560   X 342 347   f   a   f 235 303  \r  \n   I   S   O   L   I   N
>   0001600   U   X       3   .   3   6       2   0   0   7   -   0   2   -
>   0001620   1   0      \0       C   o   p   y   r   i   g   h   t       (
>   (found in Recovery Is Possible 2.9 CD image)

No, there is no reliable signature in isolinux.bin.

There is a reliable signature at offset 64 in the variants that support 
hybrid mode.  For those, you may want to implement the equivalent of the 
isohybrid program into your tool.

	-hpa