Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:57:58 +0530
From:   Chandan Rajendra <chandan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/7] f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status

On Friday, November 30, 2018 12:35:13 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote:
> Hi Chandan,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:08:31PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > On Monday, November 26, 2018 11:04:35 PM IST Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:00:38PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It might be that the simplest way to solve things is to merge the f2fs
> > > > dev branch up to 79c66e75720c.  This will have the net effect of
> > > > including the five patches listed above onto the fscrypt git tree.  So
> > > > long you don't plan to rebase or otherwise change these five patches,
> > > > it should avoid any merge conflicts.
> > > 
> > > I've set up a git branch which has the f2fs dev branch, 4.20-rc4, the
> > > fsverity patches, and part of Chandan's patch series here:
> > > 
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/fscrypt.git test-working
> > > 
> > > There is a minor conflict when I did a trial merge with f2fs.git's dev
> > > branch, but it's pretty obvious to how to resolve it.
> > > 
> > > Jaegeuk, Eric, Chandan, please take a look and let me know what you
> > > think.
> > 
> > Ted,
> > 
> > I have addressed the review comments provided by Eric. Hence three out of
> > the four patches in the test-working branch have new changes. I also got
> > UBIFS to use CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION instead of the per-filesystem config
> > symbol.
> > 
> > I am currently executing fstests to verify the changes.
> > 
> > 
> > Eric,
> > 
> > When executing generic/900, I noticed that sometimes xfs_io would get stuck
> > for an indefinite period. /proc/<pid of xfs_io>/stack showed that the task was
> > stuck in tty_read() inside the kernel. The following change fixed it,
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/generic/900 b/tests/generic/900
> > index 290889ce..0831eed4 100755
> > --- a/tests/generic/900
> > +++ b/tests/generic/900
> > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ _fsv_create_enable_file $fsv_file >> $seqres.full
> >  echo "* reading"
> >  $XFS_IO_PROG -r $fsv_file -c ''
> >  echo "* xfs_io writing, should be O_RDWR"
> > -$XFS_IO_PROG $fsv_file |& _filter_scratch
> > +$XFS_IO_PROG -c '' $fsv_file 2>&1 | _filter_scratch
> >  echo "* bash >>, should be O_APPEND"
> >  bash -c "echo >> $fsv_file" |& _filter_scratch
> >  echo "* bash >, should be O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC"
> > 
> > xfs_io gets into interactive mode when invoked without a "-c cmd" string.
> > 
> > However, I am not able recreate the scenario once again without the above
> > changes applied. I am not sure about what changed. 
> > 
> 
> The test is opening a verity file for read+write access, which should fail.  But
> it's incorrectly succeeding, hence the test is right to not pass.  Did you add
> the missing call to ext4_set_inode_flags() in ext4_set_verity() as I
> suggested?
> 
> (But I'll make the suggested change to the test too, so it fails cleanly in this
> case rather than hangs reading from stdin.)

Yes, I did make the suggested changes. But the test would some times hang
indefinitely because of xfs_io waiting on input from stdin.

With the new changes made to ext4_set_verity(), I see that the fsck fails
consistency check. But the failure is seen even without my patches applied. I
have planned to debug the failure after I post the next version of the
patchset.

-- 
chandan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists