linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.17

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: <2235744.irdbgypaU6@lichtvoll.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 16:27:32 +0200
From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Malte Schröder <malte.schroeder@...ip.de>
Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.17

Hi.

Malte Schröder - 05.08.25, 23:19:21 CEST:
> So, no merge yet? That really is a bummer. I was really hoping to
> finally be able to run mainline Linux again on my boxes (yes, I
> converted all of them to bcachefs early this year), now that pretty much
> all issues I was hitting are fixed by this merge request.

Thanks, that is great to know.

> I mean, at the rate Kent's tree is stabilizing right now I am actually
> considering moving some productive systems over there. But those will
> need to run distro kernels. So, please merge, I don't want to jump
> through the hoops to run OpenZFS ...

I did not agree to some of your behavior before, Kent. But actually at 
least from your description I had the feeling this pull request is about 
stabilizing BCacheFS in order to remove the experimental tag. The pull 
request looked quite reasonable to me.

And frankly I am using BCacheFS in production meanwhile, even with 
encryption: On a 4 TB XS-2000 external SSD and I am quite sure I am not 
willing to copy over all that data to a different filesystem again. And on 
a scratch filesystem on my laptop, but that one is easily replaceable.

Sure I can switch to a different kernel source tree, having compiled 
BCacheFS tools myself as well. And I am fine to do so.

But on the other hand, Linus, on a past rc1 pull request that does not 
only contain bug fixes, there is still the option to simply not pull it. 
After the discussion that has been had, even not pulling it without 
explaining it sounds absolutely fair enough to me. It is not that someone 
could force you to accept a pull request as far as I understand.

Well, maybe that is the strategy here: Just pull this at the last day of 
the 2-week window to make sure everything else after that can only contain 
bug fixes anymore. :)

So my two cents… I'd appreciate BCacheFS to stay in kernel. I bet the 
churn to remove it and later again reintroduce it would be actually more 
work than to simply ignore a pull request every now and then.

And I think I may not be the only BCacheFS user who prefers to use 
mainline kernels.

Maybe at one conference you could come together in a room and sort this 
all out face to face. But until then maybe the approach I outlined above 
can be an option?

Best,
-- 
Martin