linux-kernel - Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

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:   Sat, 2 Apr 2022 12:54:55 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

Hi!

> > Keeping reiserfs in the tree has certain costs.  For example, I would
> > very much like to remove the 'flags' argument to ->write_begin.  We have
> > the infrastructure in place to handle AOP_FLAG_NOFS differently, but
> > AOP_FLAG_CONT_EXPAND is still around, used only by reiserfs.
> > 
> > Looking over the patches to reiserfs over the past couple of years, there
> > are fixes for a few syzbot reports and treewide changes.  There don't
> > seem to be any fixes for user-spotted bugs since 2019.  Does reiserfs
> > still have a large install base that is just very happy with an old
> > stable filesystem?  Or have all its users migrated to new and exciting
> > filesystems with active feature development?
> > 
> > We've removed support for senescent filesystems before (ext, xiafs), so
> > it's not unprecedented.  But while I have a clear idea of the benefits to
> > other developers of removing reiserfs, I don't have enough information to
> > weigh the costs to users.  Maybe they're happy with having 5.15 support
> > for their reiserfs filesystems and can migrate to another filesystem
> > before they upgrade their kernel after 5.15.
> > 
> > Another possibility beyond outright removal would be to trim the kernel
> > code down to read-only support for reiserfs.  Most of the quirks of
> > reiserfs have to do with write support, so this could be a useful way
> > forward.  Again, I don't have a clear picture of how people actually
> > use reiserfs, so I don't know whether it is useful or not.
> > 
> > NB: Please don't discuss the personalities involved.  This is purely a
> > "we have old code using old APIs" discussion.
> 
> So from my distro experience installed userbase of reiserfs is pretty small
> and shrinking. We still do build reiserfs in openSUSE / SLES kernels but
> for enterprise offerings it is unsupported (for like 3-4 years) and the module
> is not in the default kernel rpm anymore.

I believe I've seen reiserfs in recent Arch Linux ARM installation on
PinePhone. I don't really think you can remove a feature people are
using.

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)