Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210602041539.123097-1-drosen@google.com> <20210602041539.123097-3-drosen@google.com>
 <YLfh9pv1fDT+Q3pe@sol.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <YLfh9pv1fDT+Q3pe@sol.localdomain>
From:   Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:22:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+PiJmR1vWN7ij7ak4q=C0Wxa++t=SCnEFh_iDt7QVOAZy-VFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: Advertise encrypted casefolding in sysfs
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:54 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:15:39AM +0000, Daniel Rosenberg wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UNICODE
> > +F2FS_FEATURE_RO_ATTR(encrypted_casefold, FEAT_ENCRYPTED_CASEFOLD);
> > +#endif
>
> Shouldn't it be defined(CONFIG_UNICODE) && defined(CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION)?
>
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED
> >  F2FS_FEATURE_RO_ATTR(block_zoned, FEAT_BLKZONED);
> > @@ -815,6 +823,9 @@ static struct attribute *f2fs_feat_attrs[] = {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION
> >       ATTR_LIST(encryption),
> >       ATTR_LIST(test_dummy_encryption_v2),
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UNICODE
> > +     ATTR_LIST(encrypted_casefold),
> > +#endif
>
> Likewise here.
>
> - Eric

Those are already within an #ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION, so it should
be covered already.
Should I send a v2 set with the

Fixes: 7ad08a58bf67 ("f2fs: Handle casefolding with Encryption")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.11+

appended?

-Daniel