| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20060717145604.GA8276@merlin.emma.line.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:56:04 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@....de> To: Lexington Luthor <Lexington.Luthor@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiserFS? On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Lexington Luthor wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > >Why would anyone want ReiserFS in the kernel that is discontinued by its > >developers when it's just started to become stabile and useful, with > >bugs (hashing) remaining, as happened with 3.6? Who is going to make > >guarantees this won't happen again with reiser4? > > I looked at the reiser4 patch, and it does very little outside of the > fs/reiser4 directory. If it is no longer supported by namesys, why can't > it just be removed from the kernel like all the other bits that are > obsoleted? People (including you) would scream blue murder if their file system were going away. The same would happen if it just didn't work for them. Somebody, however skilled they may be, just trying out a patch and finding it works for them is certainly not sufficient reason to judge if a product is of adequate quality. The code was reviewed, found to contain major misdesigns, and the maintainers refused to fix those, and that's it. > I am just saddened that kernel decisions are motivated by politics and a > personal dislike of Hans Reiser rather than technical merit. :( If you had understood my postings, it had been clear to you that there have been technical reasons that blocked the inclusion, and there have additionally been precedences of such misconduct, or maintainers declaring the system stable when in fact it was years (literally) from that. I respect namesys for the efforts they made in getting 3.6 and the toolchain workable, but some issues remain that some people never run into, are showstoppers for others, and at that point where minor polishing was due, namesys moved on to reiser4, dropping 3.6 support - and that was a decision that made me phase out reiserfs 3.6, and I'm certainly not looking into reiser4 until 2 years after a first major distro (that's currently Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Opensuse, Mandrake) ships it as the default root and user FS. > >There's ext3, you can set the dir_index option (either for mke2fs, or > >afterwards with tune2fs, then unmount and run e2fsck -fD) and you're set. > > I am not arguing for the inclusion of reiser4 in the kernel, but you > should know it has its uses. There are very many things that reiser4 can > do that will make ext3 blow up. It simply the best filesystem for many > kinds of usage patterns. Apparently, kernel coding standard applicability doesn't fall into the usage patterns you're referring to. SCNR. I haven't heard the other side, but if you're going to contribute to some project you MUST please its maintainers - life's bad... -- Matthias Andree - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists