Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode
On 7/21/23 04:31, Finn Thain wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
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.
My oar in this resembles a toothpick.
That does change the complexion of this problem quite a bit. So the
folks in charge should first, find out how many actual users of it there
are considering the last commit was roughly a decade after the last
machine was built, and from my experience with them which forced a fire
extinguisher in every edit bay containing a pair of them, their survival
rate might total to 10 on this pale blue dot.
The rest have had a fan fail, which started a fire and they wound up in
the dumpster. If by some stroke of good luck, there are more, work out
a backup that can be recovered on some other known good filesystem,
advise the users of the existence of that method of updating to a newer
filesystem, disco the old one and get a good nights sleep.
Frankly support for NTFS-3.51 if it exists, should also join the parade
going out the door. It's housekeeping had no problem deleting its main
.dll. Much to M$ delight as at the time it was another $400 sale to
restore the machine and anybody who asked about it was called a pirate
by support.
I'm not blaming the unstable API for the bugs, I'm blaming it for the
workload. A stable API (like a userspace API) decreases the likelihood
that overloaded maintainers have to orphan a filesystem implementation.
.
Cheers, Gene Heskett.
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/>
Reply to: