From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-42a9.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-42a9.mail.infomaniak.ch [84.16.66.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36CF373BE6 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2026 17:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=84.16.66.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786038121; cv=none; b=alHrdCLNuxtwtTKWQa/IFZM2brFCdAt9TtX7JXAxbObmQj/PSKUYyF3va0u7Gh+EnPm/Uk+9tEnV20V/V+oDGrUeX6fHRnpKxo29Xr1S3YKVBEDnAJNwKEdFZAVqk7+1Nhi8DJJHRCY2DSsEPljzDoyzyWTX4SMz3vQp5I8VmAE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786038121; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GeScITOVtMDf5mf4JANMPiPfpgf0CTwPjLb72QCr7j8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aIWuCZfiBIumZFmB3jYJtV7siX4ySxulvEHIwnn5RUfu9LCq7otNO7tq9eWRLYxaJd5V8vXlbnH9ooC1dDv7bXGHaWNeTT6gJ/wscd4+rPNojOJr+6EUl5fBEdzccbZKhNNU7MlVWQ2is35UO/gkAGpnSOSJ2EAGy4GOmT7bY9E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=digikod.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=digikod.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=digikod.net header.i=@digikod.net header.b=KtvCxy04; arc=none smtp.client-ip=84.16.66.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=digikod.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=digikod.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=digikod.net header.i=@digikod.net header.b="KtvCxy04" Received: from smtp-4-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-4-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch [10.7.10.107]) by smtp-4-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4hGF2q426rzcHT; Thu, 6 Aug 2026 19:41:55 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=digikod.net; s=20191114; t=1786038115; bh=+jZTnzeU9akkNKo9pqMtKVeMpOAZJe4vlDnDBnjbnok=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KtvCxy04K0imZMmIu1vEDVnCr80R52UFIhbuqOqQwCK14GOZkk0CKdlOtdrb8eGxf NauX+Wf5W6Ps6pJoBwk7QbKWSWqcXYexnJ08iw5i7vqYhC4aEmkwC9uP2074MkJY4i tkgIDhflXCmROQffL0e5x5TuqFOVGGACgbVsauXM= Received: from unknown by smtp-4-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4hGF2n6JqWzy72; Thu, 6 Aug 2026 19:41:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 19:41:49 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Micka=C3=ABl_Sala=C3=BCn?= To: Justin Suess Cc: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack , Steven Rostedt , Christian Brauner , Jann Horn , Jeff Xu , Kees Cook , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Matthieu Buffet , Mikhail Ivanov , Tingmao Wang , kernel-team@cloudflare.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/20] landlock: Split struct landlock_domain from struct landlock_ruleset Message-ID: <20260806.rooz1ieJahng@digikod.net> References: <20260722171159.2776765-1-mic@digikod.net> <20260722171159.2776765-4-mic@digikod.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Infomaniak-Routing: alpha On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:12:18PM -0400, Justin Suess wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:11:35PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > Switch all domain users to the new struct landlock_domain type > > introduced by a previous commit, eliminating the conflation between > > mutable rulesets and immutable domains. landlock_merge_ruleset() now > > returns and allocates a struct landlock_domain, and the merge and > > inherit helpers move next to it; the former static insert_rule() is > > exported as landlock_rule_insert() for its new caller across the > > translation-unit boundary. > > > Seems a little confusing that we have > > landlock_rule_insert() (the new one) > > and > > landlock_insert_rule() (the existing one) > > Maybe a rename of one these would be appropriate? It's indeed confusing... What about landlock_store_rule()? I couldn't find anything better given the already taken names. > > Otherwise looks good :) > > Justin > > [...] >