From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f49.google.com (mail-wm1-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C9693E0C66 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 12:11:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776168720; cv=none; b=OMl31cUClGkYoz8rQtbfdzx/EN5+9P785AAFi036VlA2QNWAwd6TQ7ZhKVejj2qFn7pyWyKrDh4ecn+2usWf05yd/1wqOQkGh8Gdkq2HWSmHYtV4D4k1yiU+Z8ybaY6TfYrN/uJ9bjCxaAAMgUOob2LW3b6DHHWYdTM/WFkFWPo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776168720; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RbTGYcK6509LY81XJH8m1Pc4f+w2K7u1mTemWvMy5AY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=s7ofVpCfnomxZj6NL87ah860l1Uw5tWzkpLLY0ofI4duF8STDR8unyugHy/1Nj2gEOlTLI7oUC/wtWmN19+EaG3bVXLM7A+6Dwmf7k2P5muwmrnDEhvvyn98lz8bOZ0B9REs4dMqjzfYoWJl5uch46euldSSBxUprMUzsP86Vzw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=hackers.camp; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=hackers.camp Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488a8f97f6bso10209905e9.2 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1776168717; x=1776773517; h=message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RbTGYcK6509LY81XJH8m1Pc4f+w2K7u1mTemWvMy5AY=; b=bwSGZmAMwOAawVMb8SyGDBEmraXtlmquJfubF6vPOpwIfwj7IsRv4RU1T4XFraankS p6o8tmYuVwt50g5eshy2x4O/15zvsoHJaBErOrwN5dM6dK0naQVObuPQJoHNaH6SjBir 5QWYUsSxXDeZQ410YEuqLpH6SutuSrToUs+X4m0MZDiTDqFl5J42tZfV4ESKQgMPFKM4 antYdnVDAMG5+LxlrLq8g5iYSbDKMwJEoW6aze25y0h/4kcFeO3C3u01pGeguQMYi/Ej IS7fWfCJAQj5xOYLWIWKRwj+zkfLDksI359+cFbnKDY8+8No/A3r7Zbes0Irvgwhsb1i NHqA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/qLDg3OZ4WAbAwaiO1TvxMSmnw80WKmPQQalV3xaflV011+q2D3T2kNW64C7HEWESdgv647P/9OEgia3Av@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzsnCXumag15Ie3IicUVxkaG2Jj1Q95MTXLtyfcar0vOZIMCt41 8/TBhUutn0mFUXMGNARzkANmxVavA1tjx/1kYj/HDfYwM0ByUb5kWe5nuLbwm3l4 X-Gm-Gg: AeBDieu4gYXeRGQaO+Yzh33Xj6UwIM2nj+bN29kYJM+rg4vbzLeOKuhKwtYvx8cVHHk UP9zuA0SCx3v3F6PUCzi1vKrZa9SPe9GCNdOHpX2PfSr8YxDqnWgqAVyUpW/SALEhAWUTQngOWv nT5ThL6pz6NBs2nj0fpLONL2j8eYitQd7QTLkxjPtlgob441QYjgsnL3mHM0Wf74HGEF4yzNIgH 0RzxGCu00iLL7A5DKjyJvceoLu/wf49cAVvtiQkZounvPkT4RLoP8HNYFJOCYMbutt2LUvpVL01 ii7iSd0BFdAo0auxmFazyHkerpEKr2+iC1VNyJMQ/xWsKjokH7ipj9n7MsUCitIoxQ8MD7PmQhC 4ox5tDvtC6SugpyTNZqjCzJwE1g5wvXshzwY9w6GM1Fc5ssBLSP2HCNONNpZxu5aTyZaIF1mtoD NXLej1+biPABORTHthC7B0DnPwHO++BgtmVaO3myqig89uvG0/tg68kKwISuVTOLbNSw21nWk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:45cf:b0:488:af08:73c5 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488d683337bmr108457505e9.4.1776168717391; Tue, 14 Apr 2026 05:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hackers.camp ([2a01:cb1c:784:2f00:708:2805:7128:7a75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-488ee03898bsm45605905e9.11.2026.04.14.05.11.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 14 Apr 2026 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (nullmailer pid 12727 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:11:31 -0000 From: Aurelien DESBRIERES To: Darrick J. Wong Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/10] ftrfs: Fault-Tolerant Radiation-Robust Filesystem In-Reply-To: <20260413181156.GY6202@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260413142357.515792-1-aurelien@hackers.camp> <20260413181156.GY6202@frogsfrogsfrogs> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:11:31 +0200 Message-Id: <1776175891.855383.12726.nullmailer@hackers.camp> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 11:11:56AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Why not add FEC to btrfs instead? Then you can concentrate on getting > the IO paths correct, instead of burning time on ensuring that you've > implemented all the other posix filesystemisms correctly. Adding FEC to btrfs would produce a filesystem that cannot be certified under DO-178C, ECSS-E-ST-40C, or IEC 61508. btrfs at ~200k lines is not auditable under these frameworks regardless of what features are added or removed. The certification constraint is a hard requirement for the target environment (space, avionics, nuclear/industrial). It is not a preference. A smaller, purpose-built filesystem with RS FEC as a first-class design constraint is the only viable path to certification. btrfs also carries significant complexity in its COW B-tree allocator, extent maps, and RAID layer that would need to be analyzed and certified alongside the FEC addition. The audit surface would be orders of magnitude larger than a dedicated implementation. That said, the IO path concern is valid. v3 addresses this by migrating the data IO path to iomap as you and Matthew Wilcox requested. buffer_head is retained only for metadata IO (inode table, directory blocks) pending further review. Aurelien DESBRIERES