Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "fuse: Apply flags2 only when userspace set the FUSE_INIT_EXT"

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:46 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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