Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:03:28AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > I suspect that this is one of those catch-22 situations: distros are > > > going to enable every feature under the sun. That doesn't mean that > > > anyone is actually _using_ them these days. > > I think the value of filesystem code is not just a question of how often > it gets executed -- it's also about retaining access to the data collected > in archives, museums, galleries etc. that is inevitably held in old > formats. That's an argument for adding support to tar, not for maintaining read/write support. > > We need to much more proactive about dropping support for unmaintained > > filesystems that nobody is ever fixing despite the constant stream of > > corruption- and deadlock- related bugs reported against them. > > IMO, a stream of bug reports is not a reason to remove code (it's a reason > to revert some commits). > > Anyway, that stream of bugs presumably flows from the unstable kernel API, > which is inherently high-maintenance. It seems that a stable API could be > more appropriate for any filesystem for which the on-disk format is fixed > (by old media, by unmaintained FLOSS implementations or abandoned > proprietary implementations). You've misunderstood. Google have decided to subject the entire kernel (including obsolete unmaintained filesystems) to stress tests that it's never had before. IOW these bugs have been there since the code was merged. There's nothing to back out. There's no API change to blame. It's always been buggy and it's never mattered before. It wouldn't be so bad if Google had also decided to fund people to fix those bugs, but no, they've decided to dump them on public mailing lists and berate developers into fixing them.
Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:38:52PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 2:39 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:50:47PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > > Then we should delete the HFS/HFS+ filesystems. They're orphaned in > > > > MAINTAINERS and if distros are going to do such a damnfool thing, > > > > then we must stop them. > > > > > > Both HFS and HFS+ work perfectly fine. And if distributions or users are > > > so > > > sensitive about security, it's up to them to blacklist individual features > > > in the kernel. > > > > > > Both HFS and HFS+ have been the default filesystem on MacOS for 30 years > > > and I don't think it's justified to introduce such a hard compatibility > > > breakage just because some people are worried about theoretical evil > > > maid attacks. > > > > > > HFS/HFS+ mandatory if you want to boot Linux on a classic Mac or PowerMac > > > and I don't think it's okay to break all these systems running Linux. > > > > If they're so popular, then it should be no trouble to find somebody > > to volunteer to maintain those filesystems. Except they've been > > marked as orphaned since 2011 and effectively were orphaned several > > years before that (the last contribution I see from Roman Zippel is > > in 2008, and his last contribution to hfs was in 2006). > > One data point may help.. I've been running Linux on an old PowerMac > and an old Intel MacBook since about 2014 or 2015 or so. I have needed > the HFS/HFS+ filesystem support for about 9 years now (including that > "blessed" support for the Apple Boot partition). > > There's never been a problem with Linux and the Apple filesystems. > Maybe it speaks to the maturity/stability of the code that already > exists. The code does not need a lot of attention nowadays. > > Maybe the orphaned status is the wrong metric to use to determine > removal. Maybe a better metric would be installation base. I.e., how > many users use the filesystem. I think you're missing the context. There are bugs in how this filesystem handles intentionally-corrupted filesystems. That's being reported as a critical bug because apparently some distributions automount HFS/HFS+ filesystems presented to them on a USB key. Nobody is being paid to fix these bugs. Nobody is volunteering to fix these bugs out of the kindness of their heart. What choice do we have but to remove the filesystem, regardless of how many happy users it has?
Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:50:47PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Then we should delete the HFS/HFS+ filesystems. They're orphaned in > > MAINTAINERS and if distros are going to do such a damnfool thing, > > then we must stop them. > > Both HFS and HFS+ work perfectly fine. And if distributions or users are so > sensitive about security, it's up to them to blacklist individual features > in the kernel. > > Both HFS and HFS+ have been the default filesystem on MacOS for 30 years > and I don't think it's justified to introduce such a hard compatibility > breakage just because some people are worried about theoretical evil > maid attacks. > > HFS/HFS+ mandatory if you want to boot Linux on a classic Mac or PowerMac > and I don't think it's okay to break all these systems running Linux. If they're so popular, then it should be no trouble to find somebody to volunteer to maintain those filesystems. Except they've been marked as orphaned since 2011 and effectively were orphaned several years before that (the last contribution I see from Roman Zippel is in 2008, and his last contribution to hfs was in 2006).
