"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Now that fsverity supports working on entire folios, call
> fsverity_verify_folio() instead of fsverity_verify_page()
Thanks for catching it.
>
> Reported-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ext4/readpage.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
I agree that we could use fsverity_verify_folio() instead of
fsverity_verify_page() here.
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/readpage.c b/fs/ext4/readpage.c
> index 6f46823fba61..3e7d160f543f 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/readpage.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/readpage.c
> @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ int ext4_mpage_readpages(struct inode *inode,
> folio_size(folio));
> if (first_hole == 0) {
> if (ext4_need_verity(inode, folio->index) &&
> - !fsverity_verify_page(&folio->page))
> + !fsverity_verify_folio(folio))
> goto set_error_page;
> folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> folio_unlock(folio);
> --
> 2.39.2
