From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 1EE9738757C; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 09:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772614870; cv=none; b=IIvAt5H2T+AczmvESP/LhwINglV7zwwSScDBYgmhINEl9KTLkndR8LUBIRYo3csithTOk9/rCrIAlgVhmSt8y16v2FPFofByVwRnxzNOgCJpuyISlTfVij+azyjsdpczLfz2ztnguMkQ8Xnvhpc9EwOHwijA6AAUOh6mhC6fDg8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772614870; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ESzdFMKxxVwMXoACFFs7lJ42bKXGQF3nHtio6ZbiIHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XhwVU/o5rBvyh69ZJYcOHWWa6ZPtTtlGJCzCvyt7kNuUBUR3pto6vNIN6LD1wyoqPru553xF3bzDuD8gMhsjrnDPmgMS66HeCPDSoLJ3GWLhwGqeu+sABNL+WUxSK7UUIbtuj46PJybi9sXYijgDRFs9VW/5DHzwQ8RzxmHN+DI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=F4dxYQ0L; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="F4dxYQ0L" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57339C19423; Wed, 4 Mar 2026 09:01:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772614869; bh=ESzdFMKxxVwMXoACFFs7lJ42bKXGQF3nHtio6ZbiIHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=F4dxYQ0LxX37XM8+EwatQPlb+PrCVvR2om+6MNwfH5QUaWtv6fj6sSUP19dB34exF 9C+5XpEmb411WpjHSkSgHwHLRO72vxdfeIwVk4B7Dkb3ZPZfAdehnVODUCsmCboz9x /sedICIoGWypTl23Yi4zFN1u0bQJXmuYprjFFH34aK7jT1OnflOkhVfbZbcrlWZlVs AHgQmuzGYhXYd/HpixyZ0z1DOb0gAF3ZOtgigiF6ZsbK20RRnoqBc0S02SqrfKIP+7 aarPkmFhs9OfX4omaVldku9o1TlLcZq731Y2cf28CsDQ63RQcjiHSdCG2PSe3KUNnl CcUfGsewVf7iA== Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 01:00:13 -0800 From: Eric Biggers To: Milan Broz Cc: Sami Tolvanen , dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, Alasdair Kergon , Mike Snitzer , Mikulas Patocka , Benjamin Marzinski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] dm-verity: more FEC fixes and cleanups Message-ID: <20260304090013.GA2211@sol> References: <20260206045942.52965-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20260303201656.GE2846@sol> <690a74be-4707-4bf8-8c71-685dd8831664@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <690a74be-4707-4bf8-8c71-685dd8831664@gmail.com> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 09:25:02AM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > On 3/3/26 9:16 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Unfortunately the verity-compat-test script isn't in very good shape. I > > opened a pull request to clean it up: > > https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/-/merge_requests/890 > > The testing suite was written mostly as a volunteer effort for cryptsetup > to cover userspace interoperability, so it uses mostly parameters that > worked properly with many ancient kernels (root=2, etc.). > > The testsuite was not intended to test the kernel in the first place, > similar to the dm-crypt one. Despite that, it has found many kernel > bugs in the past, apparently because the kernel itself lacks proper tests. > > As I am the primary author of this test and have not been paid for working > on cryptsetup for years now, I have really enough of this "your code is shit, > I know better" approach without even cc'ing us. > > We try not to touch tests much (e.g., refactoring) unless really necessary, > to prevent accidentally introducing regressions. > If there is a QA team validating it, it would be much simpler, but each > corporation cares only about its own corporate sh^W products. > > Your approach is going exactly in the opposite direction, rewriting only > parts you are interested in, according to your taste. So now we have multiple > approaches in different scripts. I am really tempted to reject this, as it will > add us much more effort in the future. > > That said, I want to add new tests there, but please at least try to think > about it from this point of view. Okay, it sounds like the verity-compat-test script isn't open for contributions then. Would have been nice to know earlier, but thanks for letting me know now. I'll plan to start some new tests for kselftests. - Eric