Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:43:15 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     =?utf-8?B?5bi45Yek5qWg?= <changfengnan@vivo.com>,
        "jaegeuk@kernel.org" <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        "chao@kernel.org" <chao@kernel.org>,
        "adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" 
        <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] f2fs: notify when device not supprt inlinecrypt
Message-ID: <Yl3pg33jbLIIig7G@mit.edu>
References: <20220418063312.63181-1-changfengnan@vivo.com>
 <20220418063312.63181-2-changfengnan@vivo.com>
 <Yl0RmUoZypbVmayj@sol.localdomain>
 <KL1PR0601MB400369725474F2A2DE647057BBF39@KL1PR0601MB4003.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <Yl3lxMnZ5teL+bkU@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yl3lxMnZ5teL+bkU@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

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