Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.8

[Kent Overstreet]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 02:36:30PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > [...]
> >       bcachefs: %pg is banished
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Not a PR blocker, but this patch re-introduces users of strlcpy() which
> has been otherwise removed this cycle. I'll send a patch to replace
> these new uses, but process-wise, I'd like check on how bcachefs patches
> are reviewed.

I'm happy to fix it. Perhaps the declaration could get a depracated
warning, though?

> Normally I'd go find the original email that posted the patch and reply
> there, but I couldn't find a development list where this patch was
> posted. Where is this happening? (Being posted somewhere is supposed
> to be a prerequisite for living in -next. E.g. quoting from the -next
> inclusion boiler-plate: "* posted to the relevant mailing list,") It
> looks like it was authored 5 days ago, which is cutting it awfully close
> to the merge window opening:
> 
> 	AuthorDate: Fri Jan 5 11:58:50 2024 -0500

I'm confident in my testing; if it was a patch that needed more soak
time it would have waited.

> Actually, it looks like you rebased onto v6.7-rc7? This is normally
> strongly discouraged. The common merge base is -rc2.

Is there something special about rc2?

I reorder patches fairly often just in the normal course of backporting
fixes, and if I have to rebase everything for a backport I'll often
rebase onto a newer kernel so that the people who are running my tree
are testing something more stable - it does come up.

> It also seems it didn't get a run through scripts/checkpatch.pl, which
> shows 4 warnings, 2 or which point out the strlcpy deprecation:
> 
> WARNING: Prefer strscpy over strlcpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/89
> #123: FILE: fs/bcachefs/super.c:1389:
> +               strlcpy(c->name, name.buf, sizeof(c->name));
> 
> WARNING: Prefer strscpy over strlcpy - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/89
> #124: FILE: fs/bcachefs/super.c:1390:
> +       strlcpy(ca->name, name.buf, sizeof(ca->name));
> 
> Please make sure you're running checkpatch.pl -- it'll make integration,
> technical debt reduction, and coding style adjustments much easier. :)

Well, we do have rather a lot of linters these days.

That's actually something I've been meaning to raise - perhaps we could
start thinking about some pluggable way of running linters so that
they're all run as part of a normal kernel build (and something that
would be easy to drop new linters in to; I'd like to write some bcachefs
specific ones).

The current model of "I have to remember to run these 5 things, and then
I'm going to get email nags for 3 more that I can't run" is not terribly
scalable :)