linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

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]

Message-ID: <YO755O8JnxG44YaT@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:51:16 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:50:08PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> On 13.07.2021 22:14, Al Viro wrote:
> > To elaborate a bit - there's one case when I want it to go through
> > vfs.git, and that's when there's an interference between something
> > going on in vfs.git and the work done in filesystem.  Other than
> > that, I'm perfectly fine with maintainer sending pull request directly
> > to Linus (provided that I hadn't spotted something obviously wrong
> > in the series, of course, but that's not "I want it to go through
> > vfs.git" - that's "I don't want it in mainline until such and such
> > bug is resolved").
> 
> let me take this opportunity to ask about another filesystem.
> 
> Would you advise to send pull req for the fs/ntfs3 directly to Linus?
> 
> That is a pending filesystem that happens to be highly expected by many
> Linux focused communities.
> 
> 
> Paragon Software GmbH proved it's commitment by sending as many as 26
> versions on it's patchset. The last set was send early April:
> 
> [PATCH v26 00/10] NTFS read-write driver GPL implementation by Paragon Software
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=161738417018673&q=mbox
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsdevel/list/?series=460291
> 
> 
> I'd say there weren't any serious issues raised since then.
> 
> One Tested-by, one maintenance question, one remainder, one clang-12
> issue [0] [1].
> 
> It seems this filesystem only needs:
> 1. [Requirement] Adjusting to the meanwhile changed iov API [2]
> 2. [Clean up] Using fs/iomap/ helpers [3]

Why haven't those things been done and the patches resubmitted for
review?  Nothing we can do from our side when the developers don't want
to submit a new series, right?

thanks,

greg k-h