linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:53:04 -0400
From:   "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To:     dedekind1@...il.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, joern@...fs.org,
        prasadjoshi.linux@...il.com
Cc:     logfs@...fs.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] logfs: remove from tree

On 2016-09-12 02:55, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 15:04 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Logfs was introduced to the kernel in 2009, and hasn't seen any non
>> drive-by changes since 2012, while having lots of unsolved issues
>> including the complete lack of error handling, with more and more
>> issues popping up without any fixes.
>>
>> The logfs.org domain has been bouncing from a mail, and the
>> maintainer
>> on the non-logfs.org domain hasn't repsonded to past queries either.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
> Back in 2008 logfs and UBIFS were in sort of competing projects. I
> remember we inspected logfs code and tested it - we did not find proper
> wear-levelling and bad block handling, we did not see proper error
> handling, and it exploded when we were running relatively simple tests.
> We indicated this here in a very humble way to avoid the "conflict of
> interest" perseption:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/31/117
>
> I did not follow logfs since then, but I think there wasn't much
> development since then and all these issue are still there. I mean,
> unless I am horribly mistaken, logfs does not really have the basic
> features of a flash file system and there is no point keeping it in the
> tree and consuming people's time maintaining it.
>
FWIW, I tried testing it about a year ago, and got similar results both 
from the tests and from trying to contact the maintainer.