linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the ext4 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:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 22:08:33 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the ext4 tree

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 9:11 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> In which case we will have an ext4 filesystem in Linus' kernel that has
> no testing ... and if someone has done the testing, then they can at
> least supply the merge resolution that they tested.

Well, the good news is that it will have more testing than the cifs
resolution I did - if only because I actually have ext4 filesystems
that I'd test with.

I'm not claiming that's great either, of course. I think this whole
"convert from find_get_pages_range_tag() to filemap_get_folios_tag()
with very different semantics at the same time as all the writepages
work is done" was an absolutely *horrible* idea.

I actually considered doing the cifs merge by just keeping the old
format, and making a wrapper around "filemap_get_folios_tag()" that
would work one page at a time, just to avoid the whole "do two changes
at once" issue.

But then I - probably from some excessive hubris - decided I could
just rewrite the whole thing without testing, and just get it right on
the first try.

I did have DavidH's suggestion to look at, but decided that was buggy,
so mine is actually fairly different.

Yes. I do think "excessive hubris" is probably the right word choice.
But "insanity" probably also comes close ;)

           Linus