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

[Fan Wu]

On 8/18/2024 10:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> 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.
> 

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