From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:46:45 -0700 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH v2 05/23] fsverity: make fsverity_verify_folio() accept folio's offset and size In-Reply-To: <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> References: <20230404145319.2057051-1-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230404145319.2057051-6-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> Message-ID: List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7193D6ABC for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 15:46:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=/a4RYFvjJCESxZnfN0nD29LBSxPBoE93Z5aSyhucaTc=; b=uZ5h4XuoSXe9+bgTWZvctsPSxL J8n1Ti8TOouo/7zVirWNYVC1UyJOxKJpvj0IV+068Sq2z4depUOryc2RPjsLDhDshySk3s1ERkMpO twG0PSY4Y9A4gHSqC5CiZ3DMrNnYamMfG6SDrpa5Hbgson6ObhdtRptTunuu6/oiaeD91NhGeqxl2 LLiW0vhAwI9MzSnUyZBwOw1mxO39uzvhLDuMN7ocWBeWMY6tdeepv0CTpk6k8mMGLRIx/k4z9ngyj nvah9ZylV5D24DoACN/gpECeBwawUgtXs3FnYtThZl3pWf+dDadXNQQ65Tb5WLmAhQS1NHqb3/aKN ufVxLm9g==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pk5LR-004xwQ-0b; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:46:45 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:46:45 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrey Albershteyn Cc: Christoph Hellwig , djwong@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, fsverity@lists.linux.dev, rpeterso@redhat.com, agruenba@redhat.com, xiang@kernel.org, chao@kernel.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, jth@kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/23] fsverity: make fsverity_verify_folio() accept folio's offset and size Message-ID: References: <20230404145319.2057051-1-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230404145319.2057051-6-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fsverity@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F84BC7619A for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 15:47:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Ps8C26FKpz3cfj for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 01:47:10 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=uZ5h4Xuo; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org (client-ip=2607:7c80:54:3::133; helo=bombadil.infradead.org; envelope-from=batv+46b8a92f13ae362fdcdf+7164+infradead.org+hch@bombadil.srs.infradead.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=uZ5h4Xuo; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Ps8Bs6hcqz3bfk for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2023 01:46:59 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=/a4RYFvjJCESxZnfN0nD29LBSxPBoE93Z5aSyhucaTc=; b=uZ5h4XuoSXe9+bgTWZvctsPSxL J8n1Ti8TOouo/7zVirWNYVC1UyJOxKJpvj0IV+068Sq2z4depUOryc2RPjsLDhDshySk3s1ERkMpO twG0PSY4Y9A4gHSqC5CiZ3DMrNnYamMfG6SDrpa5Hbgson6ObhdtRptTunuu6/oiaeD91NhGeqxl2 LLiW0vhAwI9MzSnUyZBwOw1mxO39uzvhLDuMN7ocWBeWMY6tdeepv0CTpk6k8mMGLRIx/k4z9ngyj nvah9ZylV5D24DoACN/gpECeBwawUgtXs3FnYtThZl3pWf+dDadXNQQ65Tb5WLmAhQS1NHqb3/aKN ufVxLm9g==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pk5LR-004xwQ-0b; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:46:45 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:46:45 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrey Albershteyn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/23] fsverity: make fsverity_verify_folio() accept folio's offset and size Message-ID: References: <20230404145319.2057051-1-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230404145319.2057051-6-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, agruenba@redhat.com, djwong@kernel.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Christoph Hellwig , cluster-devel@redhat.com, dchinner@redhat.com, rpeterso@redhat.com, jth@kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62485C76188 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2023 15:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1pk5Lv-0008Gl-VH; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:47:16 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1pk5Lu-0008Ge-JQ for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:47:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/a4RYFvjJCESxZnfN0nD29LBSxPBoE93Z5aSyhucaTc=; b=PtBFq0ziXbI+hAADIhOjOsl0Ms yDd3GsDV676jMhw1DgEgVsUag1zn1OlOq589PXg8+o8NhpHCojuCPx3lNuxfkvQWBETrYEkVmvh47 91N8aU/6z504OdwXRAflmNPs/2TpvkJZR2ddk+eWvCttQnCvEThjBzXSgpNi8vC4LOro=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/a4RYFvjJCESxZnfN0nD29LBSxPBoE93Z5aSyhucaTc=; b=UBLYgEURsLuW/AoTEKR1LvFL/q vqKSYAMmZIoiuL9alAtMTxZECJww12eNExyJoTAhfarqxEIhQH18Zl8qIlMeuj69nIJvTSmCW8e2a RxbGT/8NecG7h8gQ2FfUrORU8K3CkAWOycgg/NB2Y9AGLKxCB/2+fvrw7lz7T0Hx28Q0=; Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]) by sfi-mx-2.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.95) id 1pk5Lt-0001hc-Oh for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:47:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=/a4RYFvjJCESxZnfN0nD29LBSxPBoE93Z5aSyhucaTc=; b=uZ5h4XuoSXe9+bgTWZvctsPSxL J8n1Ti8TOouo/7zVirWNYVC1UyJOxKJpvj0IV+068Sq2z4depUOryc2RPjsLDhDshySk3s1ERkMpO twG0PSY4Y9A4gHSqC5CiZ3DMrNnYamMfG6SDrpa5Hbgson6ObhdtRptTunuu6/oiaeD91NhGeqxl2 LLiW0vhAwI9MzSnUyZBwOw1mxO39uzvhLDuMN7ocWBeWMY6tdeepv0CTpk6k8mMGLRIx/k4z9ngyj nvah9ZylV5D24DoACN/gpECeBwawUgtXs3FnYtThZl3pWf+dDadXNQQ65Tb5WLmAhQS1NHqb3/aKN ufVxLm9g==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pk5LR-004xwQ-0b; Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:46:45 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:46:45 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrey Albershteyn Message-ID: References: <20230404145319.2057051-1-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230404145319.2057051-6-aalbersh@redhat.com> <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230405103642.ykmgjgb7yi7htphf@aalbersh.remote.csb> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-Headers-End: 1pk5Lt-0001hc-Oh Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 05/23] fsverity: make fsverity_verify_folio() accept folio's offset and size X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, agruenba@redhat.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Christoph Hellwig , cluster-devel@redhat.com, dchinner@redhat.com, rpeterso@redhat.com, xiang@kernel.org, jth@kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel