On 8/18/2024 10:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:11 PM Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/16/2024 6:35 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
...
+#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
+ u8 *root_digest_sig; /* signature of the root digest */
+#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY */
unsigned int salt_size;
sector_t data_start; /* data offset in 512-byte sectors */
sector_t hash_start; /* hash start in blocks */
@@ -58,6 +61,9 @@ struct dm_verity {
bool hash_failed:1; /* set if hash of any block failed */
bool use_bh_wq:1; /* try to verify in BH wq before normal work-queue */
unsigned int digest_size; /* digest size for the current hash algorithm */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
+ unsigned int sig_size; /* root digest signature size */
+#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY */
unsigned int hash_reqsize; /* the size of temporary space for crypto */
enum verity_mode mode; /* mode for handling verification errors */
unsigned int corrupted_errs;/* Number of errors for corrupted blocks */
Just nit-picking: I would move "unsigned int sig_size" up, after "u8
*root_digest_sig" entry.
Mikulas
Sure, I can make these two fields together.
Fan, do you want me to move the @sig_size field when merging or are
you planning to submit another revision? I'm happy to do it during
the merge, but I don't want to bother if you are going to post another
patchset.
Thanks, Paul. It seems moving the field during the merge can expedite
the process. Please go ahead with that. I appreciate your help with this!
-Fan
