public inbox for linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: tytso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 1/2] ext4/053: update the test_dummy_encryption tests
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 10:19:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YnASjrPbudBXCYfK@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ym/Sk7D17iCeQIJa@mit.edu>

On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 05:46:11AM -0700, tytso wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:19:27PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > 
> > The kernel patch "ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported"
> > will tighten the requirements on when the test_dummy_encryption mount
> > option will be accepted.  Update ext4/053 accordingly.
> 
> One of the problems with ext4/053 is that it is very implementation
> dependent.  It was useful when we were making the change to the new
> mount API, but the problem is any future changes to the mount option
> handling is going to break the patch.
> 
> So for example, the kernel patch which Eric has proposed, "ext4: only
> allow test_dummy_encryption when supported", breaks ext4/053, which I
> noted in the review the patch.  But then this patch will break kernels
> as they currently stand without this patch, and for kernels that
> haven't moved to the new mount API, fixing it is going to be a mess.
> 
> Perhaps ext4/053 is still useful in that it will flag changes that
> might unintentionally make user-visible changes mount options handling
> in ext4, but for cases like this one, where we are changing a mount
> option which is really intended for kernel developers, perhaps the
> right approach here is to just remove the parts of ext4/053 that are
> testing the behaviour of test_dummy_encryption in such a
> super-nit-picky way?
> 
> What do folks think?

I'd like to keep the test_dummy_encryption test cases.  Trying to add a couple
new test cases (patch 2) actually found a regression.

We could gate them on the kernel version, similar to the whole ext4/053 which
already only runs on kernel version 5.12.  (Kernel versions checks suck, but
maybe it's the right choice for this very-nit-picky test.)  Alternatively, I
could just backport "ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported" to
5.15, which would be the only relevant LTS kernel version.

> 
> > Move the test cases to later in the file to group them with the other
> > test cases that use do_mkfs to add custom mkfs options instead of using
> > the "default" filesystem that the test creates at the beginning.
> 
> Note: this patch doesn't apply because ext4/053 currently has this
> line:
> 
> 		not_mnt test_dummy_encryption=v3
> 
> and the patch is trying to remove this line in the first patch chunk:
> 
> 		mnt test_dummy_encryption=v3 ^test_dummy_encryption=v3
> 
> I checked the upstream version of ext4/053 just in case I had some
> local modification of ext4/053 in my tree via "git diff -r
> origin/master tests/ext4/053" but that returned no deltas.
> 
> Eric, do you have a local modification to this test in your tree
> already, perhaps?

Sorry about that; as I mentioned in the cover letter, this is based on my other
patch "ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing".  As-is, 'not_mnt'
doesn't really work at all, so I wanted to fix that first.

- Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-02 17:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-01  5:19 [xfstests PATCH 0/2] update test_dummy_encryption testing in ext4/053 Eric Biggers
2022-05-01  5:19 ` [xfstests PATCH 1/2] ext4/053: update the test_dummy_encryption tests Eric Biggers
2022-05-02 12:46   ` tytso
2022-05-02 17:19     ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2022-05-10 14:53       ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-05-11  8:45         ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-01  5:19 ` [xfstests PATCH 2/2] ext4/053: test changing test_dummy_encryption on remount Eric Biggers
2022-05-18 14:19 ` [xfstests PATCH 0/2] update test_dummy_encryption testing in ext4/053 Zorro Lang
2022-05-18 17:37   ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-18 18:16     ` Zorro Lang
2022-05-18 22:01       ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-19  4:47         ` Zorro Lang
2022-05-19  8:33           ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-19 10:40             ` Zorro Lang
2022-05-19  8:10         ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-19 10:58 ` Lukas Czerner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YnASjrPbudBXCYfK@sol.localdomain \
    --to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox