From patchwork Sun Jul 9 19:11:03 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sweet Tea Dorminy X-Patchwork-Id: 13306090 Received: from box.fidei.email (box.fidei.email [71.19.144.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14A3C12B for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2023 19:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from authenticated-user (box.fidei.email [71.19.144.250]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by box.fidei.email (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EF3780380; Sun, 9 Jul 2023 15:11:13 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dorminy.me; s=mail; t=1688929874; bh=fB7FS2bicAzPtOhig8q3nYVJLH7SXzzwI3tUEHwhzvw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=iLbhz/URnz11WNPlNG/k6udVgAJBXitqQFzub+OGBYzmLiH0tbg8xD1in9GSqxCUd V5e+RgOR3DCsioAMIY4js0pztMOsk1nUio1DOweUwLbMxa1lH6iygiYIotquep00dq DJyPelewJfRlYLSsX3d9yIE+WtGh8kESHd+1V4GTsEPejVL5ZcImo/Ql62NiM7dDT5 Ayu2Dhes/CdAxymvVLZ4w91CW3W+dtDzvV51+13YQ0XJLEMM74F5FOHyKqFvncXasU YEmLne+sJYtBpcmeLiyS5gV1L46qDqaMZlly7+4BY9ttsMmovyyeFX/LQUR+T4NRL0 g+paAYqWGENyQ== From: Sweet Tea Dorminy To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, ebiggers@google.com, anand.jain@oracle.com, fdmanana@suse.com, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, fsverity@lists.linux.dev, zlang@kernel.org Cc: Sweet Tea Dorminy Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] fstests: add btrfs encryption testing Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 15:11:03 -0400 Message-Id: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fsverity@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 This is a preliminary fstests side of the btrfs encryption feature; more tests are needed, but this gets the existing encryption tests working with btrfs. This requires the latest related progs and kernel changesets. Marked as RFC because they're not ready to merge until all its dependencies finish landing; this is primarily to demonstrate that extent encryption, between fscrypt and btrfs, does not significantly change user-visible behavior. Changelog: RFC v2: - Reverted changes to generic/580 and generic/595 to match the new 'soft-delete' behavior introduced in v2 of kernel patchset "fscrypt: add extent encryption". (change 6) - Removed extraneous syncs/drop_caches and added copyright to new test (change 8), as per Filipe's comments. RFC v1: - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1688076612.git.sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me/T/#t Sweet Tea Dorminy (8): common/encrypt: separate data and inode nonces common/encrypt: add btrfs to get_encryption_*nonce common/encrypt: add btrfs to get_ciphertext_filename common/encrypt: enable making a encrypted btrfs filesystem generic/613: write some actual data for btrfs tests: adjust generic/429 for extent encryption common/verity: explicitly don't allow btrfs encryption btrfs: add simple test of reflink of encrypted data common/encrypt | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- common/verity | 4 +++ tests/btrfs/613 | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/btrfs/613.out | 13 +++++++ tests/generic/429 | 6 ++++ tests/generic/613 | 12 ++++--- 6 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/613 create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/613.out base-commit: 87f90a2dae7a4adb7a0a314e27abae9aa1de78fb