[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23b19f18-13a3-1744-cdce-801cfa35a807@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:45:39 +1000 (AEST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@...eyko.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+7bb7cd3595533513a9e7@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
ZhangPeng <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
debian-ports <debian-ports@...ts.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:03:28AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > > I suspect that this is one of those catch-22 situations: distros
> > > > are going to enable every feature under the sun. That doesn't mean
> > > > that anyone is actually _using_ them these days.
> >
> > I think the value of filesystem code is not just a question of how
> > often it gets executed -- it's also about retaining access to the data
> > collected in archives, museums, galleries etc. that is inevitably held
> > in old formats.
>
> That's an argument for adding support to tar, not for maintaining
> read/write support.
>
I rather think it's an argument for collaboration between the interested
parties upstream (inluding tar developers). As I see it, the question is,
what kind of "upstream" is best for that?
> > > We need to much more proactive about dropping support for
> > > unmaintained filesystems that nobody is ever fixing despite the
> > > constant stream of corruption- and deadlock- related bugs reported
> > > against them.
> >
> > IMO, a stream of bug reports is not a reason to remove code (it's a
> > reason to revert some commits).
> >
> > Anyway, that stream of bugs presumably flows from the unstable kernel
> > API, which is inherently high-maintenance. It seems that a stable API
> > could be more appropriate for any filesystem for which the on-disk
> > format is fixed (by old media, by unmaintained FLOSS implementations
> > or abandoned proprietary implementations).
>
> You've misunderstood. Google have decided to subject the entire kernel
> (including obsolete unmaintained filesystems) to stress tests that it's
> never had before. IOW these bugs have been there since the code was
> merged. There's nothing to back out. There's no API change to blame.
> It's always been buggy and it's never mattered before.
>
I see. Thanks for providing that background.
> It wouldn't be so bad if Google had also decided to fund people to fix
> those bugs, but no, they've decided to dump them on public mailing lists
> and berate developers into fixing them.
>
Those bugs, if moved from kernel to userspace, would be less harmful,
right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists