On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 12:39:22PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 at 12:33, Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > - if (fsverity_verify_page(dic->vi, rpage)) > > + if (fsverity_verify_blocks(dic->vi, page_folio(rpage), > > + PAGE_SIZE, 0)) > > This really is very wrong. It may be equivalent to the old code, but > the old code was *also* wrong. > > If you use "page_folio()", you need to do the proper offsetting of the > page inside the folio, unless the filesystem is purely using the old > legacy "folio is the same as page", which is simply not true in f2fs. > > It might be true in this particular case, but considering that it was > *NOT* true in another case I fixed up, I really don't want to see this > same mistake done over and over again. > > So either it's the whole folio, in which case PAGE_SIZE is wrong. > > Or it really is PAGE_SIZE, in which case you need to use the proper > offset within the folio. > > Don't take the old buggy garbage that was fsverity_verify_page() and > repeat the bug when you remove it.
The reason I went with the direct conversion is that f2fs_verify_cluster() clearly assumes small folios already, and indeed it's called only with small folios. But sure, we can make that specific line in it large-folio-aware. - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
