Re: [PATCH v6 01/22] fsverity: report validation errors through fserror to fsnotify

[Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:28:02PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> Reported verification errors to fsnotify through recently added fserror
> interface.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> ---
>  fs/verity/verify.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Acked-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>

>  		if (memchr_inv(dblock->data, 0, params->block_size)) {
> +			fserror_report_data_lost(inode, data_pos,
> +						 params->block_size, GFP_NOFS);
>  			fsverity_err(inode,
>  				     "FILE CORRUPTED!  Data past EOF is not zeroed");
>  			return false;
> @@ -312,6 +315,7 @@ static bool verify_data_block(struct fsverity_info *vi,
>  		data_pos, level - 1, params->hash_alg->name, hsize, want_hash,
>  		params->hash_alg->name, hsize,
>  		level == 0 ? dblock->real_hash : real_hash);
> +	fserror_report_data_lost(inode, data_pos, params->block_size, GFP_NOFS);

The first case does the fserror call first and the log message second,
and the second case does them in the opposite order.  I don't think it
matters what the order is, but they should be consistent.

- Eric