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]

Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:59:19 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

On 14.07.2021 16:51, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

The real issue (broken compilation) has been pointed out 2 days ago and
is a result of a more recent commit. For months filesystem could be
pushed but it wasn't for unknown reason.

As for fs/iomap/ helpers it's unclear to me if that is really required
or could be worked on later as a clean up. Darrick joked his opinion on
using those helper is biased.

In short I'd say: missing feedback.