Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/2] update test_dummy_encryption testing in ext4/053

From: Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [xfstests PATCH 0/2] update test_dummy_encryption testing in ext4/053
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 02:16:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220518181607.fpzqmtnaky5jdiuw@zlang-mailbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YoUu60S2AjP2fEOk@sol.localdomain>

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:37:47AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:19:11PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:19:26PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > This series updates the testing of the test_dummy_encryption mount
> > > option in ext4/053.
> > > 
> > > The first patch will be needed for the test to pass if the kernel patch
> > > "ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported"
> > > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220501050857.538984-2-ebiggers@kernel.org)
> > > is applied.
> > > 
> > > The second patch starts testing a case that previously wasn't tested.
> > > It reproduces a bug that was introduced in the v5.17 kernel and will
> > > be fixed by the kernel patch
> > > "ext4: fix up test_dummy_encryption handling for new mount API"
> > > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220501050857.538984-6-ebiggers@kernel.org).
> > > 
> > > This applies on top of my recent patch
> > > "ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing"
> > > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220430192130.131842-1-ebiggers@kernel.org).
> > 
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > Your "ext4/053: fix the rejected mount option testing" has been merged. As the
> > two kernel patches haven't been merged by upstream linux, I'd like to merge
> > this patchset after the kernel patches be merged. (feel free to ping me, if
> > I forget this:)
> 
> Yes, I'm waiting for them to be applied.

Thanks, I'll review this patches after your kernel patches be merged. Please
remind me, if I don't notice that in time.

> 
> > 
> > And I saw some discussion under this patchset, and no any RVB, so I'm wondering
> > if you are still working/changing on it?
> > 
> 
> I might add a check for kernel version >= 5.19 in patch 1.  Otherwise I'm not
> planning any more changes.

Actually I don't think the kernel version check (in fstests) is a good method. Better
to check a behavior/feature directly likes those "_require_*" functions.

Why ext4/053 need >=5.12 or even >=5.19, what features restrict that? If some
features testing might break the garden image (.out file), we can refer to
_link_out_file(). Or even split this case to several small cases, make ext4/053
only test old stable behaviors. Then use other cases to test new features,
and use _require_$feature_you_test for them (avoid the kernel version
restriction).

Thanks,
Zorro

> 
> - Eric
> 