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: <20230907203718.upkukiylhbmu5wjh@moria.home.lan>
Date:   Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:37:18 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 12:36:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I'm starting to look at this because I have most other pull
> requests done, and while I realize there's no universal support for it
> I suspect any further changes are better done in-tree. The out-of-tree
> thing has been done.
> 
> However, while I'll continue to look at it in this form, I just
> realized that it's completely unacceptable for one very obvious
> reason:
> 
> On Sat, 2 Sept 2023 at 20:26, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> >   https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git bcachefs-for-upstream
> 
> No way am I pulling that without a signed tag and a pgp key with a
> chain of trust. You've been around for long enough that having such a
> key shouldn't be a problem for you, so make it happen.
> 
> There are a few other issues that I have with this, and Christoph did
> mention a big one: it's not been in linux-next. I don't know why I
> thought it had been, it's just such an obvious thing for any new "I
> want this merged upstream" tree.
> 
> So these kinds of "I'll just ignore _all_ basic rules" kinds of issues
> do annoy me.
> 
> I need to know that you understand that if you actually want this
> upstream, you need to work with upstream.
> 
> That very much means *NOT* continuing this "I'll just do it my way".
> You need to show that you can work with others, that you can work
> within the framework of upstream, and that not every single thread you
> get into becomes an argument.
> 
> This, btw, is not negotiable.  If you feel uncomfortable with that
> basic notion, you had better just continue doing development outside
> the main kernel tree for another decade.
> 
> The fact that I only now notice that you never submitted this to
> linux-next is obviously on me. My bad.
> 
> But at the same time it worries me that it might be a sign of you just
> thinking that your way is special.

Linus, I specifically asked you about linux-next in the offlist pre-pull
request thread back in May. It would have been nice if I could've gotten
an answer back then; instead, I'm only getting a definitive answer on
that now.

That question has even come up in meetings and no one could give a
definitive answer; the suggestion was to email you and CC people and
ask, which is precisely what I did.

Sigh.

Now I'm wondering what other surprises I'm going to get the next time
around...