[LTP] [PATCH v4] syscalls/keyctl09: test encrypted keys with provided decrypted data.

[Yael Tzur]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:07 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi Cyril,
>
> [ Cc Richie, Li, Jan ]
>
> > Hi!
> > > > > > I this case I guess that in this case the change is so minimal that we
> > > > > > can add this test into LTP once it reaches Linus tree.
> > > > > Cyril, maybe we could finally merge our policy (waiting ack for you):
> > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20220203101803.10204-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com/
> > > > > and put keyctl09 into runtest/staging now.
>
> > > > I guess that we still did not agree on exactly how this should be
> > > > handled or did we?
>
> > > Isn't it enough "Once a feature is part of the stable kernel ABI the associated
> > > test must be moved out of staging." ?
>
> > The main problem is that someone has to make sure that it happens and
> > the process would be prone to errors. What I proposed instead was a flag
> > that would set a kernel version in which the ABI is going to be merged
> > and put the test right into the final runtest files. Then we can simply
> > skip the test on older kernels or do anything else we see as a
> > reasonable solution. At the same time we can easily add automatic
> > checker that would look for these flags in metadata into the CI which
> > would, for instance, send email to the ML once the flag is supposed to
> > be removed.
> OK, you're missing that kernel version. OTOH things get sometimes backported,
> thus it's not error prone (if we forget to leave that flag after kernel being
> released).
>
> Also version is hard to say if you use maintainer tree (which applies patches on
> previous rc1 than what is being in Linus tree). Thus maintainer's tree would be
> left, also IMHO next tree has no specific version in uname, thus we'd only
> support rc from Linus' tree.
>
> But anyway, if all agree that this is better than both solutions Richie
> implemented I'd try to find time to implement it so that we have finally a
> solution.
>
> > In this case it does not actually matter, since the test is guarded by a
> > kernel config option that is introduced by the patchset and the change
> > is fairly miniminal, so I do not think that there would be any changes
> > to the ABI anyways.
> Correct. At this stage IMHO we can dare to merge it.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr

Hi Petr and Cyril,

I wanted to check whether there is pending action left on my end?

Thanks,
Yael