32-bit fixes for verity.go

[ysangkok]

It seems that these variables are not ulongs, but actually uint64_t. On 32-bit platforms, a ulong is only 32 bits wide. So before this patch, this file wouldn't compile on i386. For amd64, this patch should make no difference, since uint64_t and ulong are the same.

There are also issues in superblock.go, but these issues are different, so I will patch them separately.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 38.59%. Comparing base (8cde73f) to head (78b9068).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #49   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   38.59%   38.59%           
=======================================
  Files          24       24           
  Lines        2257     2257           
=======================================
  Hits          871      871           
  Misses       1208     1208           
  Partials      178      178           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mikemccracken]

Thanks for this PR, this seems fine to me, as you mentioned it should have no impact on 64-bit.

I'm curious what your use case for atomfs on a 32 bit platform is, if you can share your plans let me know!

[ysangkok]

I want to run some containers in v86, which is a browser-based CPU emulator. But it only supports 32-bits. So I am looking at images such as the ones from the i386 user on Docker Hub. And I am looking at Stacker because I've seen it has EROFS and SquashFS support. It would be nice to be able to mount giant images without loading all of them into memory. If I used regular tar.gz images, I think I'd be forced to download the whole image and unpack it, which seems unnecessary.

[ysangkok]

I force pushed because I see the commit message format wasn't right.

[raharper]

I force pushed because I see the commit message format wasn't right.

Thanks, workflows are re-running.

DCO check has failed; you'll need to read/understand the DCO

https://github.com/apps/dco

And then amend your commit with your Signed-off-by: <email> at the bottom.

[raharper]

@ysangkok

Sorry for the trouble, the DCO bot compared[1] the Signed-off-by line email and Name with the github account and they don't match completely. Can you update the SoB line to match the account?

The error looks like this:

sign-off not found for commit author: FirstName LastName <email>; found: ['FirstName <email>']

it expected:

Signed-off-by: FirstName LastName <email>

1. https://github.com/project-machine/atomfs/actions/runs/17312354650/job/49183559179?pr=49

[ysangkok]

Ok, I have added LastName.

[raharper]

Thank you @ysangkok for the contribution!