linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 updates for 3.11

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180907130934.GA22855@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Sep 2018 15:09:34 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 updates for 3.11

Digging up an email thread from 2013...

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:29:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:01:11PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:58:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:02:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm really not convinced this whole Lustre thing was correctly
> > > >> handled. Merging it into stable and yet being in such bad shape that
> > > >> it isn't enabled even there? I just dunno. But I have the turd in my
> > > >> tree now, let's hope it gets fixed up.
> > > >
> > > > It's in "staging", not "stable" :)
> > > 
> > > Yes. But what was the reason to actually merge it even there? And once
> > > it gets merged, disabling it again rather than fixing the problems it
> > > has?
> > 
> > The problems turned out to be too big, too late in the merge cycle for
> > me to be able to take them (they still aren't even done, as I don't have
> > a working set of patches yet.)  So I just disabled it from the build to
> > give Andreas and team time to get it working properly.
> > 
> > I could have just removed it, but I thought I would give them a chance.
> > 
> > > This is a filesystem that Intel apparently wants to push. I think it
> > > would have been a better idea to push back a bit and say "at least
> > > clean it up a bit first". It's not like Intel is one of the clueless
> > > companies that couldn't have done so and need help from the community.
> > 
> > For this filesystem, it seems that they don't have any resources to do
> > this work and are relying on the community to help out.  Which is odd,
> > but big companies are strange some times...
> 
> Didn't we learn this lesson already with POHMELFS? i.e. that dumping
> filesystem code in staging on the assumption "the community" will
> fix it up when nobody in "the community" uses or can even test that
> filesystem is a broken development model....

Dave, and Linus, you were totally right here.  Sorry for not listening
to you before, my fault.  The lustre developers never got their act
together and probably by this being in staging, it only prolonged the
agony of everyone involved.

greg k-h