Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <717fd97a-6d14-4dc9-808c-d752d718fb80@ddn.com> <4b0b46f29955956916765d8d615f96849c8ce3f7.camel@linaro.org>
 <fa3510f3-d3cc-45d2-b38e-e8717e2a9f83@ddn.com> <1b03f355170333f20ee20e47c5f355dc73d3a91c.camel@linaro.org>
 <9afc3152-5448-42eb-a7f4-4167fc8bc589@ddn.com> <5cd87a64-c506-46f2-9fed-ac8a74658631@ddn.com>
 <8ae8ce4d-6323-4160-848a-5e94895ae60e@leemhuis.info> <CAOssrKdvy9qTGSwwPVqYLAYYEk0jbqhGg4Lz=jEff7U58O4Yqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2023102731-wobbly-glimpse-97f5@gregkh> <CAOssrKfNkMmHB2oHHO8gWbzDX27vS--e9dZoh_Mjv-17mSUTBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2023102740-think-hatless-ab87@gregkh>
In-Reply-To: <2023102740-think-hatless-ab87@gregkh>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:03:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOssrKd-O1JKEPzvnM1VkQ0-oTpDv0RfY6B5oF5p63AtQ4HoqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "fuse: Apply flags2 only when userspace set the FUSE_INIT_EXT"
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@google.com>,
        Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Draszik?= <andre.draszik@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:46=E2=80=AFPM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I'm talking about a patch where you are changing the existing
> user/kernel api by filtering out values that you previously accepted.
> And it was done in a patch saying "this might break userspace", and
> guess what, it did!
>
> So why not revert it as obviously you all anticipated that this might
> happen?

Because it's a useful patch, and while I mentioned the possibility of
a regression, I definitely didn't expect it to happen.

And I still think that the Android case doesn't count, because it's
just a completely different environment.  What can happen on Android
may not happen on non-Android and vice versa.  Why should I revert a
useful patch, because it causes a regression in a downstream kernel,
because of an Android only patch?

> The "internal" patch from Android was just using the upper values of the
> fuse api because they didn't want to conflict with the upstream values
> before their code was accepted (and it was submitted already, but not
> accepted.)
>
> So how do you want developers to work on changes before they are
> accepted with this user/kernel numbering scheme that you have?  You just
> broke anyone who was using a not-accepted-in-the-tree value, right?

Again, upstream and downstream.  There's a reason why some companies
have upstream first policies: because it's less painful in the long
run.  Android having decided to go ahead and add that patch is not my
problem, and I really really don't want to care.

Having said all that, if there's a regression that someone reports for
upstream flags (even on a vendor kernel), I'll just revert the patch
right away.

Thanks,
Miklos