Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode

[Kirsten Bromilow]

Please stop sending these emails to me and remove me from the recipient list?
!

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Jul 2023, at 02:27, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>