[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877d6hnswp.fsf@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:56:06 -0400
From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> writes:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>
> Make the test_dummy_encryption mount option require that the encrypt
> feature flag be already enabled on the filesystem, rather than
> automatically enabling it. Practically, this means that "-O encrypt"
> will need to be included in MKFS_OPTIONS when running xfstests with the
> test_dummy_encryption mount option. (ext4/053 also needs an update.)
>
> Moreover, as long as the preconditions for test_dummy_encryption are
> being tightened anyway, take the opportunity to start rejecting it when
> !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION rather than ignoring it.
>
> The motivation for requiring the encrypt feature flag is that:
>
> - Having the filesystem auto-enable feature flags is problematic, as it
> bypasses the usual sanity checks. The specific issue which came up
> recently is that in kernel versions where ext4 supports casefold but
> not encrypt+casefold (v5.1 through v5.10), the kernel will happily add
> the encrypt flag to a filesystem that has the casefold flag, making it
> unmountable -- but only for subsequent mounts, not the initial one.
> This confused the casefold support detection in xfstests, causing
> generic/556 to fail rather than be skipped.
>
> - The xfstests-bld test runners (kvm-xfstests et al.) already use the
> required mkfs flag, so they will not be affected by this change. Only
> users of test_dummy_encryption alone will be affected. But, this
> option has always been for testing only, so it should be fine to
> require that the few users of this option update their test scripts.
>
> - f2fs already requires it (for its equivalent feature flag).
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Makes sense to me and code looks good. Please add:
Reviewed-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists