Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:46:45 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, 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: <ZC2X5YlHMxzZQzhx@infradead.org>
References: <20230404145319.2057051-1-aalbersh@redhat.com>
 <20230404145319.2057051-6-aalbersh@redhat.com>
 <ZCxCnC2lM9N9qtCc@infradead.org>
 <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>
Precedence: bulk

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.