linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] ntfsplus: ntfs filesystem remake

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: <CAKYAXd_LofQsx7p-k8xH23E1gVd2-BUKS3jwKkAWStE2AHJUWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 17:33:41 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
To: dsterba@...e.cz
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org, hch@....de, 
	tytso@....edu, willy@...radead.org, jack@...e.cz, djwong@...nel.org, 
	josef@...icpanda.com, sandeen@...deen.net, rgoldwyn@...e.com, 
	xiang@...nel.org, dsterba@...e.com, pali@...nel.org, ebiggers@...nel.org, 
	neil@...wn.name, amir73il@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, cheol.lee@....com, 
	jay.sim@....com, gunho.lee@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ntfsplus: ntfs filesystem remake

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 3:31 PM David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:07:38AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > The feature comparison summary
> > ==============================
> >
> > Feature                               ntfsplus   ntfs3
> > ===================================   ========   ===========
> > Write support                         Yes        Yes
> > iomap support                         Yes        No
> > No buffer head                        Yes        No
> > Public utilities(mkfs, fsck, etc.)    Yes        No
> > xfstests passed                       287        218
> > Idmapped mount                        Yes        No
> > Delayed allocation                    Yes        No
> > Bonnie++                              Pass       Fail
> > Journaling                            Planned    Inoperative
> > ===================================   ========   ===========
>
> Having two implementations of the same is problematic but I think what
> votes for ntfs+ is that it's using the current internal interfaces like
> iomap and no buffer heads. I'm not familiar with recent ntfs3
> development but it would be good to know if the API conversions are
> planned at all.
>
> There are many filesystems using the old interfaces and I think most of
> them will stay like that. The config options BUFFER_HEAD and FS_IOMAP
> make the distinction what people care about most. In case of ntfs it's
> clearly for interoperability.
>
> As a user I'd be interested in feature parity with ntfs3, eg. I don't
> see the label ioctls supported but it's a minor thing.
I can confirm that achieving full feature parity with ntfs3, including
the label ioctl support, in the next version.
Thanks for your feedback!


> Ideally there's
> one full featured implementation but I take it that it may not be
> feasible to update ntfs3 so it's equivalent to ntfs+. As this is not a
> native linux filesystem swapping the implementation can be fairly
> transparent, depending only on the config options. The drawback is
> losing the history of fixed bugs that may show up again.
>
> We could do the same as when ntfs3 appeared, but back then it had
> arguably better position as it brought full write support. Right now I
> understand it more of as maintenance problem.