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: <22799288.EfDdHjke4D@lichtvoll.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 12:32:38 +0200
From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Gerhard Wiesinger <lists@...singer.com>
Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.17

Hi Gerhard, hi.

Gerhard Wiesinger - 10.08.25, 08:20:43 CEST:
> On 28.07.2025 17:14, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Schedule notes for users:
> > 
> > I've been digging through the bug tracker and polling users to see
> > what bugs are still outstanding, and - it's not much.
> > 
> > So, the experimental label is coming off in 6.18.
> > 
> > As always, if you do hit a bug, please report it.
> 
> I can now confirm that bcachefs is getting stable and the test cases
> with intentionally data corruption (simulation of a real world case I
> had) gets bcachefs back to a consistent state (after 2 runs of: bcachefs
> fsck -f -y ${DEV}). That's a base requirement for a stable filesystem.
> Version of bcachefs-tools is git
> 530e8ade4e6af7d152f4f79bf9f2b9dec6441f2b and kernel is
> 6.16.0-200.fc42.x86_64.
> 
> See for details, I made data corruption even worser with running the
> destroy script 5x:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/aa613c37-153c-43e4-b68e-9d50744be
> 7de@...singer.com/
> 
> Great work Kent and the other contributors.
> 
> Unfortunately btrfs can't be repaired to a consistent state with the
> same testcase. I'd like to be that testcase fixed also for BTRFS as a
> stable filesystem (versions: 6.16.0-200.fc42.x86_64, btrfs-progs v6.15,
> -EXPERIMENTAL -INJECT -STATIC +LZO +ZSTD +UDEV +FSVERITY +ZONED
> CRYPTO=libgcrypt).
> 
> (I reported that already far in the past on the mailing list, see here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/63f8866f-ceda-4228-b595-e37b016e7b1f
> @wiesinger.com/).

Thanks for this great find and these test results.

On a technical perspective I still think the Linux kernel is a better 
kernel with BCacheFS included.

And write this without having had any issues – except for bad performance 
especially on hard disks, but partly also on flash – with BTRFS. And I use 
it on a couple laptops, some virtual machines and a lot of external disks. 
But not on a multi device setup. I had a BTRFS RAID 1 for a long time. 
This also has been stable since kernel 4.6 up to the time I still used it.

So I did not really have much of a need to fsck BTRFS.

Best,
-- 
Martin