generic/397: test renaming encrypted files without key
PATCH 1/1 generic/397: test renaming encrypted files without key
From: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
Update generic/397 to test another behavior when accessing encrypted files without the key: renames should be forbidden, even though they may be possible cryptographically. Test both a regular rename and a cross rename. (It happens that generic/398 also covers the cross rename case, but it's primarily for a different reason.)
--- tests/generic/397 | 13 +++++++++++++ tests/generic/397.out | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
tests/generic/397 +13 -0
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ _cleanup() . ./common/rc . ./common/filter . ./common/encrypt +. ./common/renameat2 # remove previous $seqres.full before test rm -f $seqres.full
@@ -56,6 +57,7 @@ _supported_os Linux _require_scratch_encryption _require_xfs_io_command "set_encpolicy" _require_command "$KEYCTL_PROG" keyctl +_requires_renameat2 _new_session_keyring
@@ -135,6 +137,17 @@ mkdir $SCRATCH_MNT/edir/0123456789abcdef |& filter_create_errors | _filter_scrat ln -s foo $SCRATCH_MNT/edir/newlink |& filter_create_errors | _filter_scratch ln -s foo $SCRATCH_MNT/edir/0123456789abcdef |& filter_create_errors | _filter_scratch +# Try to rename files in the encrypted directory. This should fail with ENOKEY. +# As noted above, encrypted filenames are unpredictable, so this needs to be +# written in a way that does not assume any particular filenames. +# Regression test for: +# 173b8439e1ba ("ext4: don't allow encrypted operations without keys") +# 363fa4e078cb ("f2fs: don't allow encrypted operations without keys") +efile1=$(find $SCRATCH_MNT/edir -maxdepth 1 -type f | head -1) +efile2=$(find $SCRATCH_MNT/edir -maxdepth 1 -type f | tail -1) +mv $efile1 $efile2 |& _filter_scratch | sed 's|edir/[a-zA-Z0-9+,_]\+|edir/FILENAME|g' +src/renameat2 -x $efile1 $efile2 + # Delete the encrypted directory (should succeed) rm -r $SCRATCH_MNT/edir stat $SCRATCH_MNT/edir |& _filter_scratch
tests/generic/397.out +2 -0
@@ -10,4 +10,6 @@ mkdir: cannot create directory 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir/newdir': Required key not avail mkdir: cannot create directory 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir/0123456789abcdef': Required key not available ln: failed to create symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir/newlink': Required key not available ln: failed to create symbolic link 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir/0123456789abcdef': Required key not available +mv: cannot move 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir/FILENAME' to 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir/FILENAME': Required key not available +Required key not available stat: cannot stat 'SCRATCH_MNT/edir': No such file or directory
Signature · 1 line
2.12.0.367.g23dc2f6d3c-goog
Quoted 8 lines · Eric Biggers
From: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
Update generic/397 to test another behavior when accessing encrypted files without the key: renames should be forbidden, even though they may be possible cryptographically. Test both a regular rename and a cross rename. (It happens that generic/398 also covers the cross rename case, but it's primarily for a different reason.)
Quoted 4 lines
Cc Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>Cc Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>Cc Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
We usually don't add new tests to existing tests, expecially targeted regression tests, this could make test start failing and make people think it's a new regression.
Would you mind writing a new case for it?
Thanks,
Eryu
Quoted 14 lines · Eryu Guan
Quoted 8 lines · Eric Biggers
From: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
Update generic/397 to test another behavior when accessing encrypted files without the key: renames should be forbidden, even though they may be possible cryptographically. Test both a regular rename and a cross rename. (It happens that generic/398 also covers the cross rename case, but it's primarily for a different reason.)
Quoted 4 lines
Cc Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>Cc Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>Cc Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
We usually don't add new tests to existing tests, expecially targeted regression tests, this could make test start failing and make people think it's a new regression.
Would you mind writing a new case for it?
Thanks,
Eryu
I felt that this fit well into the existing test, but yes I'll add a new one if that's preferable. Thanks!
- Eric