From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B68C433F5 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232385AbiDRWq1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:46:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232199AbiDRWqT (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:46:19 -0400 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A472AC7F; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-108-7-220-252.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.7.220.252]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 23IMhFCS005193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:43:16 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 5FBBF15C3EB8; Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:43:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:43:15 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Eric Biggers Cc: =?utf-8?B?5bi45Yek5qWg?= , "jaegeuk@kernel.org" , "chao@kernel.org" , "adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] f2fs: notify when device not supprt inlinecrypt Message-ID: References: <20220418063312.63181-1-changfengnan@vivo.com> <20220418063312.63181-2-changfengnan@vivo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 03:27:16PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > When I test fscrypt first, it make me confused. Not a real problem, just make this logical more reasonable. > > Do you think this needs to be revised? > > Well, I'm just not sure we should do this, or at least by itself, given that > support for inline encryption is not an either-or thing, and the inlinecrypt > mount option is already documented to apply only to files where inline > encryption can be used. Indeed; some encryption algorithms won't be available because they weren't compiled into the kernel; others because block device for a particular file system doesn't support inline crypto. It seems to me that the test or the test runner should be able to figure this out. It should be able to explicitly try to set a particular policy, and if that policy fails, it should give an intelligent message, e.g., "Skipping this test config because inline-crypto isn't supported." Why can't we fix this in the test runner's scripts? - Ted