linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

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, 6 Jul 2023 14:17:29 -0500
From:   Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
        djwong@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, sandeen@...hat.com,
        willy@...radead.org, tytso@....edu, bfoster@...hat.com,
        jack@...e.cz, andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

On 7/6/23 12:38 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Right now what I'm hearing, in particular from Redhat, is that they want
> it upstream in order to commit more resources. Which, I know, is not
> what kernel people want to hear, but it's the chicken-and-the-egg
> situation I'm in.

I need to temper that a little. Folks in and around filesystems and 
storage at Red Hat find bcachefs to be quite compelling and interesting, 
and we've spent some resources in the past several months to 
investigate, test, benchmark, and even do some bugfixing.

Upstream acceptance is going to be a necessary condition for almost any 
distro to consider shipping or investing significantly in bcachefs. But 
it's not a given that once it's upstream we'll immediately commit more 
resources - I just wanted to clarify that.

It is a tough chicken and egg problem to be sure. That said, I think 
you're right Kent - landing it upstream will quite likely encourage more 
interest, users, and hopefully developers.

Maybe it'd be reasonable to mark bcachefs as EXPERIMENTAL or similar in 
Kconfig, documentation, and printks - it'd give us options in case it 
doesn't attract developers and Kent does get hit by a bus or decide to 
go start a goat farm instead (i.e. in the worst case, it could be 
yanked, having set expectations.)

-Eric