From: "Theodore Ts'o" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com> Cc: "Leonidas P. Papadakos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Konstantin Komarov <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "Darrick J. Wong" <email@example.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Hans de Goede <email@example.com>, linux-fsdevel <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <email@example.com>, Al Viro <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:48:36 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YQnHxIU+EAAxIjZA@mit.edu> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whfeq9gyPWK3yao6cCj7LKeU3vQEDGJ3rKDdcaPNVMQzQ@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:07:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The argument that "it's already in a much better state than the old > ntfs driver" may not be a very strong technical argument (not because > of any Paragon problems - just because the old ntfs driver is not > great), but it _is_ a fairly strong argument for merging the new one > from Paragon. I'm not 100% sure that "it's better than the old driver", actually. Konstantin has not been responding to Darrick and my questions about what sort of QA and testing they were doing. So over the weekend, I decided to take efforts into my own hands, and made the relatively simple changes to fstests needed to add support for ntfs and ntfs3 file systems. The results show that the number fstests failures in ntfs3 is 23% *more* than ntfs. This includes a potential deadlock bug, and generic/475 reliably livelocking. Ntfs3 is also currently not container compatible, because it's not properly handling user namespaces. For more details, please see  and  for the complete set of test artifacts.  https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/fstests-results/results-ntfs-2021-08-02.tar.xz  https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/fstests-results/results-ntfs3-2021-08-03.tar.xz > And I don't think there has been any huge _complaints_ about the code, > and I don't think there's been any sign that being outside the kernel > helps. Historically, the file system community at large have pushed for a fairly high bar before a file system is merged into the kernel, because there was a concern that once a file system got dumped into fs/ if the maintainers weren't going to commit to continuous improvement of their file system --- the only leverage we might have is what effectively amounts to "hazing" to make sure that the propsective maintainers would actually be serious about continuing to work on the file system. One argument for why this should be the case is that unlike a dodgy driver that "just" causes the kernel to crash, if data ends up getting corrupted, simply rebooting won't recover the user's data. And once a file system is added to mainline, it's a lot harder to remove it if it turns out to be buggy as all h*ck. It's not clear this has been an effective strategy. And there are other ways we could handle an abandonware file system --- we could liberally festoon its Kconfig with warnings and printk "DANGER WILL ROBINSON" messages when someone attempts to use a dodgy file system in mainline. But I think whatever rationale we give for accepting --- or holding off --- on ntfs3, we should also think about how we should be handling requests from other file systems such as bcachefs, reiserfs4, tux3, etc. Maybe this should be a maintainers summit discussion topic? I dunno.... - Ted P.S. Here is the summary of the test results of running ntfs and ntfs3 on 5.14-rc2, with the latest ntfs3 patches applied. Note that for ntfs3, I had to manually exclude generic/475, since running that test will cause the kernel to lock up and prevent the rest of the tesets from running. So that's really 68 fstests failures for ntfs3, versus 55 fstests failures for ntfs. And it's really not the absolute number of test failures that bothers me, so much as the complete radio silence from Konstantin after you've indicated that you are willing to take the ntfs3 merge request. It increases the concerns I personally have that ntfs3 might end up becoming abandonware after it's been accepted. ntfs/default: 670 tests, 55 failures, 211 skipped, 34783 seconds Failures: generic/003 generic/035 generic/053 generic/062 generic/087 generic/088 generic/093 generic/097 generic/099 generic/102 generic/105 generic/123 generic/126 generic/193 generic/226 generic/237 generic/260 generic/294 generic/306 generic/307 generic/314 generic/317 generic/318 generic/319 generic/321 generic/355 generic/375 generic/378 generic/409 generic/410 generic/411 generic/416 generic/423 generic/424 generic/426 generic/427 generic/441 generic/444 generic/452 generic/466 generic/467 generic/475 generic/477 generic/500 generic/525 generic/529 generic/545 generic/547 generic/553 generic/555 generic/564 generic/589 generic/597 generic/629 generic/631 ntfs3/default: 664 tests, 67 failures, 206 skipped, 8106 seconds Failures: generic/013 generic/015 generic/034 generic/039 generic/040 generic/041 generic/056 generic/057 generic/065 generic/066 generic/073 generic/083 generic/090 generic/091 generic/092 generic/094 generic/101 generic/102 generic/104 generic/106 generic/107 generic/130 generic/225 generic/226 generic/228 generic/240 generic/258 generic/263 generic/311 generic/317 generic/320 generic/321 generic/322 generic/335 generic/336 generic/341 generic/342 generic/343 generic/348 generic/360 generic/361 generic/371 generic/376 generic/416 generic/427 generic/441 generic/476 generic/480 generic/481 generic/483 generic/489 generic/498 generic/502 generic/510 generic/512 generic/520 generic/526 generic/527 generic/534 generic/538 generic/547 generic/551 generic/552 generic/557 generic/598 generic/631 generic/640 Other file systems for reference: f2fs/default: 646 tests, 13 failures, 154 skipped, 1812 seconds Failures: generic/018 generic/026 generic/050 generic/064 generic/066 generic/103 generic/219 generic/260 generic/342 generic/502 generic/506 generic/526 generic/527 btrfs/default: 1075 tests, 8 failures, 219 skipped, 9143 seconds Failures: btrfs/012 btrfs/154 btrfs/219 btrfs/220 btrfs/235 btrfs/241 generic/260 shared/298 xfs/4k: 922 tests, 1 failures, 136 skipped, 5452 seconds Failures: xfs/506 ext4/4k: 504 tests, 0 failures, 25 skipped, 6877 seconds nfs/filestore_v3: 743 tests, 1 failures, 307 skipped, 9261 seconds Failures: generic/551 (Note: GCE Filestore uses a Linux kernel so this is testing the nfsv3 client versus a Linux nfsv3 server --- I think the Filestore kernel is currently using 5.4.129 if I remember correctly.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-03 22:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-07-13 10:45 Hans de Goede 2021-07-13 19:15 ` Linus Torvalds 2021-07-13 20:14 ` Al Viro 2021-07-13 20:18 ` Al Viro 2021-07-13 20:24 ` Randy Dunlap 2021-07-13 20:32 ` Al Viro 2021-07-13 21:43 ` Randy Dunlap 2021-07-14 10:50 ` Rafał Miłecki 2021-07-14 14:13 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-07-14 14:51 ` Greg KH 2021-07-14 15:59 ` Rafał Miłecki 2021-07-14 16:05 ` Matthew Wilcox 2021-07-14 16:18 ` Rafał Miłecki 2021-07-15 21:50 ` Neal Gompa 2021-07-16 11:46 ` Leonidas P. Papadakos 2021-07-16 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds 2021-07-30 15:55 ` Konstantin Komarov 2021-07-30 17:23 ` Paragon NTFSv3 (was Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1) Linus Torvalds 2021-08-13 16:11 ` Konstantin Komarov 2021-08-15 20:32 ` Stephen Rothwell 2021-08-16 3:00 ` Kari Argillander 2021-09-02 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds 2021-08-03 22:48 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message] 2021-08-03 23:44 ` [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1 Matthew Wilcox 2021-08-04 0:04 ` Theodore Ts'o 2021-08-04 0:10 ` Linus Torvalds 2021-08-04 0:49 ` Theodore Ts'o 2021-08-04 1:03 ` Darrick J. Wong 2021-08-04 6:38 ` Kari Argillander 2021-08-04 16:30 ` Theodore Ts'o 2021-08-05 15:48 ` Konstantin Komarov 2021-08-10 7:02 ` Darrick J. Wong 2021-09-02 22:09 ` NTFS testing (was: " Szabolcs Szakacsits 2021-09-03 17:48 ` Eric Biggers 2021-09-03 21:17 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits 2021-07-17 16:47 ` Pali Rohár 2021-07-14 16:13 ` Darrick J. Wong 2021-07-14 16:18 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-07-14 16:38 ` Gao Xiang 2021-07-14 20:03 ` Eric W. Biederman 2021-07-15 22:14 ` Darrick J. Wong 2021-07-13 19:17 ` pr-tracker-bot
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=YQnHxIU+EAAxIjZA@mit.edu \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).