From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F173DC4CD for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:26:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790346393; cv=none; b=rkTqdY2bX+sY+JCvSA8sgWdx6O0b92ty/x/Gm4Ey2Oj/opP+v8FnZeRuIzlNG01kmHFCnH5QWno13g+G9TdG8/2RWbb64u+zmPJdJv/dGpwXohgfagk34zm7mHCGGyVggo0dw2eRK77od9LM8wakwjrSNNACghi0QCEXzR1yKQA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790346393; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fV3Jgkl/ECw7yPuLbrcfSprVubY/tQ49FdawjdY5JG8=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=Iibcd22W9yOPgHKUqytWnTTKr5bSuTM5xKPadumqmhfeAUezJ7Z3M0CrEikmxxnLBtqOv87STYbnnCtRaEK2EZjW9Z2a0bBVzmBZFua14EW/hq9cqF+luZ3qnaEhXz6fwMWs/G6/WQkaV8FZ0cc6C0YonVaGqzncP8mdDBpm0cQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=BN7jhv4Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BN7jhv4Z" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CDDF1F000FF; Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:26:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790346392; bh=fV3Jgkl/ECw7yPuLbrcfSprVubY/tQ49FdawjdY5JG8=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=BN7jhv4Zmv7SFvNxF+QOu5RsSmrfpaEN/SckohHPsBazyHQIzc1GWKUIhoFSWOvl8 oytwaFgBhxAdTSCILXplnRemP6gwQM6wNjyI1yFg5XqMFz93IcusztTmfluyCtsB9j BcMFRNgMWoHpZUy1xRp/7ejO551AYgKbscsth9vq6nFv6KzEdLdx/qNQxU8hLpwHsW ry6zhcsD8Z2YkU6hsoJ1xm1hXJmvjzY0kKZDITmMj8YoYqwsngWgVcMPtZxH1CWHKT iWdSBV7V8U3BKSVHLT8H5Cjp/HMGUZEnGrS1/Kv616w3RTbRnURyNMLalkQ+3Md6DZ iKxb36Bf9AqsQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: reject encrypted inodes when block size > page size Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Alberto Garcia" Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:26:31 +0000 Message-Id: <20260925142632.4CDDF1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > Encryption is not supported when a filesystem's block size is larger > than the page size. ext4_check_large_folio() refuses to mount a > filesystem like that if the "encrypt" feature is already enabled, and > ext4_set_context() refuses to create encrypted inodes if the feature > is enabled after mounting. >=20 > However, a corrupted or hand-crafted filesystem can still have > encrypted inodes even if the "encrypt" feature is not set, and those > inodes can be unlocked if they're using v1 policies. >=20 > Check this in __ext4_iget() and reject them as corrupted. >=20 > Fixes: 709f0f1f1bf5 ("ext4: add checks for large folio incompatibilities = when BS > PS") > Suggested-by: Eric Biggers > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.19+ > Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1790343958.gi= t.berto@igalia.com?part=3D2