[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Ben Hutchings]

I apologise for the long delay in responding to the kernel config files
I was given.  Here's a first list of features I would like to *not*
support.  I expect to be able to send additional lists soon.  Let me
know if you really need some of the features listed below, and if you
have any ideas about how to mitigate the problems I see.

The following features are enabled in some of the configurations I was
sent but seem to be unsupportable over CIP's time scale:

File systems:
- btrfs (CONFIG_BTRFS_FS)
  - Too rapidly changing to backport most fixes
- ceph (CONFIG_CEPH_LIB, CONFIG_CEPH_FS)
  - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
- cifs (CONFIG_CIFS_FS)
  - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
- nfs (CONFIG_NFS_FS, CONFIG_NFSD)
  - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
- ufs (CONFIG_UFS_FS)
  - No work by current maintainer for 7 years
- xfs (CONFIG_XFS_FS)
  - Maintainers unsupportive of backporting fixes

Networking:
- batman-adv (CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV)
  - Rapidly changing
- caif (CONFIG_CAIF)
  - No work by current maintainer for 5 years
- dcb (CONFIG_DCB)
  - No current maintainer
- hsr (CONFIG_HSR)
  - No work by current maintainer for 2 years
- llc2 (CONFIG_LLC2)
  - No work by current maintainer for 7 years
- phonet (CONFIG_PHONET)
  - Dead protocol
- sctp (CONFIG_IP_SCTP)
  - Poor security record
- wimax (CONFIG_WIMAX)
  - Dead protocol
- x25 (CONFIG_X25)
  - Poor security record

I have some doubts about whether these can be supported:

- ntfs (CONFIG_NTFS_FS)
  - Fixes are never marked for stable
- overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
  - I found many apparently important bug fixes in later kernel
    versions that have not been backported

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[小口琢夫 / KOGUCHI，TAKUO]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your efforts.

> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.

Best regards,  

Takuo Koguchi,
Hitachi, Ltd.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
> [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hutchings
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 11:13 AM
> To: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: [!][cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking
> 
> I apologise for the long delay in responding to the kernel config files I was given.  Here's a
> first list of features I would like to *not* support.  I expect to be able to send additional lists
> soon.  Let me know if you really need some of the features listed below, and if you have
> any ideas about how to mitigate the problems I see.
> 
> The following features are enabled in some of the configurations I was sent but seem to
> be unsupportable over CIP's time scale:
> 
> File systems:
> - btrfs (CONFIG_BTRFS_FS)
>   - Too rapidly changing to backport most fixes
> - ceph (CONFIG_CEPH_LIB, CONFIG_CEPH_FS)
>   - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
> - cifs (CONFIG_CIFS_FS)
>   - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
> - nfs (CONFIG_NFS_FS, CONFIG_NFSD)
>   - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
> - ufs (CONFIG_UFS_FS)
>   - No work by current maintainer for 7 years
> - xfs (CONFIG_XFS_FS)
>   - Maintainers unsupportive of backporting fixes
> 
> Networking:
> - batman-adv (CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV)
>   - Rapidly changing
> - caif (CONFIG_CAIF)
>   - No work by current maintainer for 5 years
> - dcb (CONFIG_DCB)
>   - No current maintainer
> - hsr (CONFIG_HSR)
>   - No work by current maintainer for 2 years
> - llc2 (CONFIG_LLC2)
>   - No work by current maintainer for 7 years
> - phonet (CONFIG_PHONET)
>   - Dead protocol
> - sctp (CONFIG_IP_SCTP)
>   - Poor security record
> - wimax (CONFIG_WIMAX)
>   - Dead protocol
> - x25 (CONFIG_X25)
>   - Poor security record
> 
> I have some doubts about whether these can be supported:
> 
> - ntfs (CONFIG_NTFS_FS)
>   - Fixes are never marked for stable
> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
>   - I found many apparently important bug fixes in later kernel
>     versions that have not been backported
> 
> Ben.
> 
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Agustin Benito Bethencourt]

Hi Ben,

On 29/05/17 03:40, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your efforts.
>
>> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
 >>   - I found many apparently important bug fixes in later kernel
     versions that have not been backported

Is there a technical reason for these patches not being backported or is 
it simply that never was requested/needed before?

> OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
> I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.

Based on this request, is it possible for you to estimate the effort to 
do this?

@Takuo is there a kernel developer from Hitachi that would be willing to 
work under Ben's supervision/review in backporting these patches?

Best Regards

-- 
Agustin Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant - FOSS at Codethink
agustin.benito at codethink.co.uk

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Ben Hutchings]

On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 04:58 +0100, Agustin Benito Bethencourt wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> On 29/05/17 03:40, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts.
> >
> >> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
>  >>   - I found many apparently important bug fixes in later kernel
>      versions that have not been backported
> 
> Is there a technical reason for these patches not being backported or is 
> it simply that never was requested/needed before?

I don't know yet.  I will ask upstream.

> > OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
> > I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.
> 
> Based on this request, is it possible for you to estimate the effort to 
> do this?

Not yet, but I will try to get an idea of how large a change is needed.

Ben.

> @Takuo is there a kernel developer from Hitachi that would be willing to 
> work under Ben's supervision/review in backporting these patches?

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.


-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2017-05-29 04:40, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for your efforts.
> 
>> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
> OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
> I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.
> 

We plan to use this feature with CIP kernels as well.

Regards,
Jan

> Best regards,  
> 
> Takuo Koguchi,
> Hitachi, Ltd.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org
>> [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hutchings
>> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 11:13 AM
>> To: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
>> Subject: [!][cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking
>>
>> I apologise for the long delay in responding to the kernel config files I was given.  Here's a
>> first list of features I would like to *not* support.  I expect to be able to send additional lists
>> soon.  Let me know if you really need some of the features listed below, and if you have
>> any ideas about how to mitigate the problems I see.
>>
>> The following features are enabled in some of the configurations I was sent but seem to
>> be unsupportable over CIP's time scale:
>>
>> File systems:
>> - btrfs (CONFIG_BTRFS_FS)
>>   - Too rapidly changing to backport most fixes
>> - ceph (CONFIG_CEPH_LIB, CONFIG_CEPH_FS)
>>   - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
>> - cifs (CONFIG_CIFS_FS)
>>   - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
>> - nfs (CONFIG_NFS_FS, CONFIG_NFSD)
>>   - Complex network protocol which is likely to need many fixes
>> - ufs (CONFIG_UFS_FS)
>>   - No work by current maintainer for 7 years
>> - xfs (CONFIG_XFS_FS)
>>   - Maintainers unsupportive of backporting fixes
>>
>> Networking:
>> - batman-adv (CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV)
>>   - Rapidly changing
>> - caif (CONFIG_CAIF)
>>   - No work by current maintainer for 5 years
>> - dcb (CONFIG_DCB)
>>   - No current maintainer
>> - hsr (CONFIG_HSR)
>>   - No work by current maintainer for 2 years
>> - llc2 (CONFIG_LLC2)
>>   - No work by current maintainer for 7 years
>> - phonet (CONFIG_PHONET)
>>   - Dead protocol
>> - sctp (CONFIG_IP_SCTP)
>>   - Poor security record
>> - wimax (CONFIG_WIMAX)
>>   - Dead protocol
>> - x25 (CONFIG_X25)
>>   - Poor security record
>>
>> I have some doubts about whether these can be supported:
>>
>> - ntfs (CONFIG_NTFS_FS)
>>   - Fixes are never marked for stable
>> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
>>   - I found many apparently important bug fixes in later kernel
>>     versions that have not been backported
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> --
>> Ben Hutchings
>> Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cip-dev mailing list
>> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
>> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cip-dev mailing list
> cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> https://lists.cip-project.org/mailman/listinfo/cip-dev
> 

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Ben Hutchings]

On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:40 +0000, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for your efforts.
> 
> > - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
> OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
> I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.

Yes, I thought this was popular.  I think we will have to find some way
to support it.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Daniel Sangorrin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hutchings
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:16 PM
> To: ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking
> 
> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:40 +0000, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts.
> >
> > > - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
> > OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
> > I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.
> 
> Yes, I thought this was popular.  I think we will have to find some way
> to support it.
> 

During the CIP TSC meeting I proposed using Ubuntu kernel backports.
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/log/fs/overlayfs

What do you think?

Thanks,
Daniel


 

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2017-06-01 15:30, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hutchings
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:16 PM
>> To: ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO
>> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking
>>
>> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:40 +0000, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>
>>>> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
>>> OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
>>> I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.
>>
>> Yes, I thought this was popular.  I think we will have to find some way
>> to support it.
>>
> 
> During the CIP TSC meeting I proposed using Ubuntu kernel backports.
> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/log/fs/overlayfs
> 
> What do you think?

Did overlayfs folks looked at/commented on this already? Ideally,
maintainers should have at least a rough look on our backports whenever
possible.

Jan

[cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking

[Daniel Sangorrin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Kiszka [mailto:jan.kiszka at siemens.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:50 PM
> To: Daniel Sangorrin; 'Ben Hutchings'; '???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO'
> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking
> 
> On 2017-06-01 15:30, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hutchings
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:16 PM
> >> To: ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO
> >> Cc: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> >> Subject: Re: [cip-dev] Kernel feature support - filesystems and networking
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:40 +0000, ???? / KOGUCHI?TAKUO wrote:
> >>> Hi Ben,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your efforts.
> >>>
> >>>> - overlayfs (CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS)
> >>> OVERLAY_FS is one of the features Hitachi wants to use.
> >>> I hope you look into this further and I would like to know if other members also want it.
> >>
> >> Yes, I thought this was popular.  I think we will have to find some way
> >> to support it.
> >>
> >
> > During the CIP TSC meeting I proposed using Ubuntu kernel backports.
> > http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git/log/fs/overlayfs
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> Did overlayfs folks looked at/commented on this already? Ideally,
> maintainers should have at least a rough look on our backports whenever
> possible.

The Ubuntu LTS kernels contain patches back ported by them from upstream and
their own patches which are usually prefixed by UBUNTU. UBUNTU patches are often
based on BUG reports on launchpad.

As for overlayfs, it seems that UBUNTU has cherry-picked quite a few patches by
the main maintainer Miklos Szeredi. UBUNTU patches were mostly added by Seth Forshee
but I couldn't find any review online. 

I think it would be nice to have a rough overlook by the maintainers. And we should also
test them ourselves thoroughly. For example, running LXC with overlayfs.

Thanks,
Daniel