[PATCH v20 12/20] dm verity: expose root hash digest and signature data to LSMs

[Paul Moore]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:11 PM Fan Wu <wufan at linux.microsoft.com> 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.

-- 
paul-moore.com