lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:46:45 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Andrey Albershteyn <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/23] fsverity: make fsverity_verify_folio() accept
 folio's offset and size

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 12:36:42PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 08:30:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 04:53:01PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> > > Not the whole folio always need to be verified by fs-verity (e.g.
> > > with 1k blocks). Use passed folio's offset and size.
> > 
> > Why can't those callers just call fsverity_verify_blocks directly?
> > 
> They can. Calling _verify_folio with explicit offset; size appeared
> more clear to me. But I'm ok with dropping this patch to have full
> folio verify function.

Well, there is no point in a wrapper if it has the exact same signature
and functionality as the functionality being wrapped.

That being said, right now fsverity_verify_folio, so it might make sense
to either rename it, or rename fsverity_verify_blocks to
fsverity_verify_folio.  But that's really a question for Eric.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists