Some filesystems (e.g. UBIFS) fail with EPERM when trying to move a
file into an encrypted directory via cross rename, without having
access to the encryption key.
Since rename is perfectly allowed to return EPERM, which is also
tested for, and no precise specification seems to exist that
clarifies when to expect EPERM and when ENOKEY, this patch modifies
the generic/398 test to accept both, for the test case where the key
is not available.
Signed-off-by: David Oberhollenzer <david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at>
Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
The bug fix that ultimately landed in the fscrypt tree will return
ENOKEY instead of EPERM when doing a cross rename involving a
directory where the key is not available. So fix up the golden output
for generic/398 accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Add an xfstest which verifies that the filesystem forbids operations
that would violate the constraint that all files in an encrypted
directory tree use the same encryption policy.
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
David Oberhollenzer
Theodore Ts'o
Eric Biggers