linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] arch: m68k: remove ReiserFS from defconfig

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: <20230919133227.6448-1-peter@n8pjl.ca>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:32:33 +0000
From:   Peter Lafreniere <peter@...jl.ca>
To:     geert@...ux-m68k.org
Cc:     jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, peter@...jl.ca,
        reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] arch: m68k: remove ReiserFS from defconfig

On Mon, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:19, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 7:57 PM Peter Lafreniere peter@...jl.ca wrote:
> 
> > ReiserFS has been deprecated for a year and a half, yet is still built
> > as part of a defconfig kernel.
> > 
> > According to commit eb103a51640e ("reiserfs: Deprecate reiserfs"), the
> > filesystem is slated to be removed in 2025. Remove it from the defconfig
> > profiles now, as part of its deprecation process.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Lafreniere peter@...jl.ca
> 
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> Given these defconfigs enable ReiserFS as a module (not built-in),
> and that ReiserFS is still available upstream, and enabled by distros
> like Debian, I would like to keep it that way.
> The m68k defconfigs will be updated after the removal of ReiserFS,
> as part of the regular defconfig resync.

I still think that since ReiserFS is being removed soon enough and that there
are a negligible number of users, it should be left out of defconfig builds.
allmodconfig and custom configs (like Debian's) exist for a reason.

But yours is a reasonable approach anyhow. Especially for an arch that is in
the same position as some of the more exotic filesystems that you build as
modules. Thanks for taking a look.

Cheers,

Peter Lafreniere
<peter@...jl.ca>