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]

Message-ID: <20230706193146.f2ktfnsxhrfokasp@moria.home.lan>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:31:46 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, 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 Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 02:17:29PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I should probably have worder that a bit better. But in the
conversations I've had with people at other companies it does sound like
the interest is there, it's just that filesystem/storage teams are not
so big these days as to support investing in something that is not yet
mainlined.

> 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.

Gotta start somewhere :)
 
> 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.)

Yeah, it does need to be marked EXPERIMENTAL initially, regardless -
staged rollout please, not everyone all at once :)