Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] verifiers: Add the documentation

[Daniel Kiper]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:43:08PM -0400, Ross Philipson wrote:
> On 10/03/2018 05:36 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Serbinenko <address@hidden>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko <address@hidden>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > v3 - suggestions/fixes:
> >    - improve the documentation.
> > ---
> >  docs/grub-dev.texi |   57 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/docs/grub-dev.texi b/docs/grub-dev.texi
> > index a9f4de6..ad72705 100644
> > --- a/docs/grub-dev.texi
> > +++ b/docs/grub-dev.texi
> > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ This edition documents version @value{VERSION}.
> >  * Video Subsystem::
> >  * PFF2 Font File Format::
> >  * Graphical Menu Software Design::
> > +* Verifiers framework::
> >  * Copying This Manual::         Copying This Manual
> >  * Index::
> >  @end menu
> > @@ -1949,6 +1950,62 @@ the graphics mode that was in use before 
> > @code{grub_video_setup()} was called
> >  might fix some of the problems.
> >
> >
> > address@hidden Verifiers framework
> > address@hidden Verifiers framework
> > +
> > +To register your own verifier call @samp{grub_verifier_register} with a
> > +structure pointing to your functions.
> > +
> > +The interface is inspired by hash interface with 
> > @samp{init}/@samp{write}/@samp{fini}.
> > +
> > +There are eesntially 2 ways of using it: hashing and whole-file 
> > verification:
>
> First : should be a ;
>
> > +
> > +With hashing approach:
> > +During @samp{init} you decide whether you want to check given file and 
> > init context.
> > +In @samp{write} you update you hashing state.
>
> "update your..."
>
> > +In @samp{fini} you check that hash matches the expected value/passes some 
> > check/...
> > +
> > +With whole-file verification:
> > +During @samp{init} you decide whether you want to check given file and 
> > init context.
> > +In @samp{write} you verify file and return error if it fails.
> > +You don't have @samp{fini}.
> > +
> > +Additional @samp{verify_string} receives various strings like kernel 
> > parameters to
> > +verify. Returning no error means successful verification and an error 
> > stops the current
>
> s/and/or  maybe?
>
> > +action.
> > +
> > +Detailed description of API:
> > +
> > +Every time a file is opened your @samp{init} function is called with file 
> > descriptor
> > +and file type. Your function can have following outcomes:
> > +
> > address@hidden
> > +
> > address@hidden returning no error and setting @samp{*flags} to 
> > @samp{GRUB_VERIFY_FLAGS_DEFER}.
> > +In this case verification is deferred to others active verifiers. 
> > Verification fails if
> > +nobody cares or selected verifier fails
> > +
> > address@hidden returning no error and setting @samp{*flags} to 
> > @samp{GRUB_VERIFY_FLAGS_SKIP_VERIFICATION}.
> > +In this case your verifier will not be called anymore and your verifier is 
> > considered
> > +to have skipped verification
> > +
> > address@hidden returning error. Then opening of the file will fail due to 
> > failed verification.
> > +
> > address@hidden returning no error and not setting @samp{*flags} to 
> > @samp{GRUB_VERIFY_FLAGS_SKIP_VERIFICATION}
> > +In this case verification is done as described in following section
> > +
> > address@hidden itemize
> > +
> > +In the fourth case your @samp{write} will be called with chunks of file. 
> > If you need the whole file in a single
> > +chunk then during @samp{init} set bit 
> > @samp{GRUB_VERIFY_FLAGS_SINGLE_CHUNK} in @samp{*flags}.
> > +During @samp{init} you may set @samp{*context} if you need additional 
> > context. At every iteration you may return
> > +an error and the the file will be considered as having failed the 
> > verification. If you return no error then
> > +verification continues.
> > +
> > +Optionally at the end of the file @samp{fini} if it exists is called with 
> > just the context. If you return
> > +no error during any of @samp{init}, @samp{write} and @samp{fini} then the 
> > file is considered as having
> > +succeded verification.
>
> succeeded
>
> > +
> >  @node Copying This Manual
> >  @appendix Copying This Manual
> >
> >
>
> I noticed a lot of the text is missing articles, mainly "the" in a lot
> of places. Not sure if this was intentional to keep the text more
> abbreviated or not.

Ohhh... At least in my case it was not intentional. Well, from my POV,
as not native speaker, I do not care... :-))) Both things work for me.
I do not see the difference (my English teacher would kill me here).
Hence, it is difficult for me to use articles correctly (FYI I am
working on that). However, I am aware that this is very important for
native speakers. So, if you can add the missing stuff for me I will be
more than happy.

Daniel