From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF41EE14C3 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2023 02:51:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232054AbjIGCva (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:51:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37440 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230460AbjIGCva (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:51:30 -0400 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E449BCF2 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2023 19:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F323CC433C8; Thu, 7 Sep 2023 02:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:51:39 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Dave Chinner Cc: Guenter Roeck , Christoph Hellwig , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS/KERNEL SUMMIT] Trust and maintenance of file systems Message-ID: <20230906225139.6ffe953c@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <8718a8a3-1e62-0e2b-09d0-7bce3155b045@roeck-us.net> <20230906215327.18a45c89@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 12:22:43 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > > Anyway, what about just having read-only be the minimum for supporting a > > file system? We can say "sorry, due to no one maintaining this file system, > > we will no longer allow write access." But I'm guessing that just > > supporting reading an old file system is much easier than modifying one > > (wasn't that what we did with NTFS for the longest time?) > > "Read only" doesn't mean the filesytsem implementation is in any way > secure, robust or trustworthy - the kernel is still parsing > untrusted data in ring 0 using unmaintained, bit-rotted, untested > code.... It's just a way to still easily retrieve it, than going through and looking for those old ISOs that still might exist on the interwebs. I wouldn't recommend anyone actually having that code enabled on a system that doesn't need access to one of those file systems. I guess the point I'm making is, what's the burden in keeping it around in the read-only state? It shouldn't require any updates for new features, which is the complaint I believe Willy was having. -- Steve