linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.15-rc4

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: <tqmvxysim2bnbw6raw25k6d4cjppaqibwarh7rt5wjyphdj75d@7roc5fwin7y7>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 01:23:19 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.15-rc4

On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 12:52:05AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:20:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 at 19:46, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's a story behind the case insensitive directory fixes, and lessons
> > > to be learned.
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > The only lesson to be learned is that filesystem people never learn.
> > 
> > Case-insensitive names are horribly wrong, and you shouldn't have done
> > them at all. The problem wasn't the lack of testing, the problem was
> > implementing it in the first place.
> 
> While I agree with you in _principle_, on this specific subject -
> 
> This is all irrelevant given that the purpose of the operating system
> and the filesystem is to support users and the applications they want to
> run.
> 
> And the hacks for doing this in userspace don't work.
> 
> And the attitude of "I hate this, so I'm going to partition this off as
> much as I can and spend as little time as I can on this" has all made
> this even worse - the dcache stuff is all half baked. Stroll through the
> ext4 and xfs code and find all the comments to the effect of "yeah, we
> should really do this better _eventually_"...

And you can always tell when this attitude comes up, because you end up
with code that's 10 times more gross than it has to be.

Quotas are the other big one. You can tell no one wants to be working on
that code, and as a result it's just horrific.

Quotas aren't my favorite thing, but if a job needs to be done, do it
right.

And we've got an established need for both quotas and case insensitive
directories.

So I don't want any whining about "bad" they are. I want them to work,
and I want the code to be clean and maintainable, and not make my eyes
bleed when I have to go and debug it.