7 ms·

I hope people were running into a lot of bugs and errors as a result of that code in order to get it removed... Removing code because it's "old" or unmaintaina

I hope people were running into a lot of bugs and errors as a result of that code in order to get it removed... Removing code because it's "old" or unmaintainable but which relied on features require seems like a questionable decision to me.

nate_meurer 15y ago
Bug rate isn't the only consideration when deciding when to trim a code base. It's usually not even the best one. Gparted isn't a game. It's a critical filesystem utility. Code that isn't maintainable is by definition vulnerable in terms of both security and functionality.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  It's bloody filesystem code! If someone has enough access to your system in order to invoke a partition editor on the local machine, security is the least of your worries. Functionality.. eh. Having used gparted extensively and not having a single problem among hundreds of filesystem resizes, I've got to thank the maintainers for finally forcing me to get off my ass and purchase a commercial solution that can be trusted to not have critical functionality yanked. So thanks for that.
  - rwmj 15y ago
    You are wrong. Security very much is a concern. It's a concern because you may use parted/gparted on an untrusted virtual machine or a USB key. You don't want a malformed filesystem controlled by someone you don't mutually trust to subvert a tool running as root on your host. libvirt[1] and libguestfs[2] specifically take steps to reduce the exposure. Parted did not, but it's now somewhat more secure for getting rid of features that are better done by another means. [1] https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/what-is-svirt/ https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/what-is-svirt/ [2] http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#security http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#security
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      So run it on a VM/throwaway machine. Once you achieve that level of paranoia it's really turtles all the way down. Next we'll be trying to get rid of e2tools... A properly malicious filesystem will get you a compromised userspace program... big whoop, there are far far far more likely vectors for that, at least manipulating a strange and untrusted filesystem with gparted is something you have to try to do. The danger libguestfs is attempting to avoid does not apply here meaningfully.
      - rwmj 15y ago
        So run it on a VM/throwaway machine That's exactly what libguestfs does.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        Yes, I got that. That's my entire point.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    It's not filesystem code. It's a userland utility that has direct access to your devices. No, the security of utilities that can directly IO my disks is never the least of my worries. > "Having used gparted extensively and not having a single problem among hundreds of filesystem resizes..." Cool, just make sure you stick with your legacy hardware. Tell you what, go look at the gparted code, and tell me how it'll handle an HFS on my new 4k sector disks. If you can either reassure me or suggest a patch, I might change my mind. Edit: I certainly don't mean this to insult any of the work of gparted's devs. I just picked HFS as an example. The fact that gparted works so well is a tribute to those developers (looking at you xilun0).
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      So there's a problem with HFS on newer hardware, and the resulting decision is to completely yank all filesystem functionality? The FAT code works, why yank it? The NTFS code works, why yank it? This is a serious question. What possible usage does one have for gparted/libparted over something like fdisk now? 99.99% of my use case (and other's use case, if looking over various forums means anything) was resizing of partitions to install some some *ix. This decision boggles my mind.
      - nate_meurer 15y ago
        My point wasn't really about HFS. All the filesystem-specific code will need to be adapted to changes in both hardware and in the target filesystems. What's going on here should make you question whether you really want to use gparted to resize partitions on new disks going forward. For my part, if a disk utility claims to work with my hardware, then it had better be tight. My advice to you is to stick with the older versions of gparted.
      - scott_s 15y ago
        All code has assumptions. As the rest of the software stack and hardware change, system software often needs to change with it to remain correct. With no active maintainer, "works" is a question, not a given.
    - 15y ago
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "It's a critical filesystem utility." Not anymore it isn't.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    I know it sucks having functionality you depend on be deprecated away. I don't have a good answer for that. What alternatives are there for managing FAT, VFS, or HFS? Edit: sorry, not vfs. I was thing vfat, but that's not really relevant either.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I don't really know. I haven't had to use it or anything else to preform those sorts of tasks for years to be honest. I just let Fedora (or whatever) format whatever disk I'm installing on as it likes. Of course I expect my usage is not typical, I also have a rather low amount of data that I keep around (below 15GB) so it's not really like I have complex disk needs. So this parted nonsense doesn't actually effect me, looking from the outside I just think it's dumb as hell. I expect FAT/VFS/HFS/etc have an equivalent of e2tools. I never really used those FSs anyway.
hasenj 15y ago
You've got it backwards. It's a big mistake to wait for lots of errors (which in reality means people losing their precious data) before taking this measure.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >It's a big mistake to wait for lots of errors [...] So if there are no errors?

nate_meurer 15y ago

Bug rate isn't the only consideration when deciding when to trim a code base. It's usually not even the best one. Gparted isn't a game. It's a critical filesystem utility. Code that isn't maintainable is by definition vulnerable in terms of both security and functionality.

Karunamon 15y ago
It's bloody filesystem code! If someone has enough access to your system in order to invoke a partition editor on the local machine, security is the least of your worries. Functionality.. eh. Having used gparted extensively and not having a single problem among hundreds of filesystem resizes, I've got to thank the maintainers for finally forcing me to get off my ass and purchase a commercial solution that can be trusted to not have critical functionality yanked. So thanks for that.
- rwmj 15y ago
  You are wrong. Security very much is a concern. It's a concern because you may use parted/gparted on an untrusted virtual machine or a USB key. You don't want a malformed filesystem controlled by someone you don't mutually trust to subvert a tool running as root on your host. libvirt[1] and libguestfs[2] specifically take steps to reduce the exposure. Parted did not, but it's now somewhat more secure for getting rid of features that are better done by another means. [1] https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/what-is-svirt/ https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/what-is-svirt/ [2] http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#security http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#security
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    So run it on a VM/throwaway machine. Once you achieve that level of paranoia it's really turtles all the way down. Next we'll be trying to get rid of e2tools... A properly malicious filesystem will get you a compromised userspace program... big whoop, there are far far far more likely vectors for that, at least manipulating a strange and untrusted filesystem with gparted is something you have to try to do. The danger libguestfs is attempting to avoid does not apply here meaningfully.
    - rwmj 15y ago
      So run it on a VM/throwaway machine That's exactly what libguestfs does.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Yes, I got that. That's my entire point.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  It's not filesystem code. It's a userland utility that has direct access to your devices. No, the security of utilities that can directly IO my disks is never the least of my worries. > "Having used gparted extensively and not having a single problem among hundreds of filesystem resizes..." Cool, just make sure you stick with your legacy hardware. Tell you what, go look at the gparted code, and tell me how it'll handle an HFS on my new 4k sector disks. If you can either reassure me or suggest a patch, I might change my mind. Edit: I certainly don't mean this to insult any of the work of gparted's devs. I just picked HFS as an example. The fact that gparted works so well is a tribute to those developers (looking at you xilun0).
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    So there's a problem with HFS on newer hardware, and the resulting decision is to completely yank all filesystem functionality? The FAT code works, why yank it? The NTFS code works, why yank it? This is a serious question. What possible usage does one have for gparted/libparted over something like fdisk now? 99.99% of my use case (and other's use case, if looking over various forums means anything) was resizing of partitions to install some some *ix. This decision boggles my mind.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      My point wasn't really about HFS. All the filesystem-specific code will need to be adapted to changes in both hardware and in the target filesystems. What's going on here should make you question whether you really want to use gparted to resize partitions on new disks going forward. For my part, if a disk utility claims to work with my hardware, then it had better be tight. My advice to you is to stick with the older versions of gparted.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      All code has assumptions. As the rest of the software stack and hardware change, system software often needs to change with it to remain correct. With no active maintainer, "works" is a question, not a given.
  - 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
burgerbrain 15y ago
"It's a critical filesystem utility." Not anymore it isn't.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  I know it sucks having functionality you depend on be deprecated away. I don't have a good answer for that. What alternatives are there for managing FAT, VFS, or HFS? Edit: sorry, not vfs. I was thing vfat, but that's not really relevant either.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I don't really know. I haven't had to use it or anything else to preform those sorts of tasks for years to be honest. I just let Fedora (or whatever) format whatever disk I'm installing on as it likes. Of course I expect my usage is not typical, I also have a rather low amount of data that I keep around (below 15GB) so it's not really like I have complex disk needs. So this parted nonsense doesn't actually effect me, looking from the outside I just think it's dumb as hell. I expect FAT/VFS/HFS/etc have an equivalent of e2tools. I never really used those FSs anyway.

hasenj 15y ago

You've got it backwards. It's a big mistake to wait for lots of errors (which in reality means people losing their precious data) before taking this measure.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>It's a big mistake to wait for lots of errors [...] So if there are no errors?