Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] landlock: transpose the layer masks data structure

["Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 10:52:26PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> > diff --git a/security/landlock/access.h b/security/landlock/access.h
> > index 7961c6630a2d7..aa0efa36a37db 100644
> > --- a/security/landlock/access.h
> > +++ b/security/landlock/access.h
> >  [...]
> >  /*
> >   * Tracks domains responsible of a denied access.  This is required to avoid
> >   * storing in each object the full layer_masks[] required by update_request().
> > + *
> > + * Each nibble represents the layer index of the newest layer which denied a
> > + * certain access right.  For file system access rights, the upper four bits are
> > + * the index of the layer which denies LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_IOCTL_DEV and the
> > + * lower nibble represents LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE.
> >   */
> >  typedef u8 deny_masks_t;
> 
> FYI: I left this out for now because it felt a bit out of scope (and
> transposing the layer masks was adventurous enough), but I was tempted
> to go one step further here and turn this into a struct with
> bitfields:
> 
> /* A collection of layer indices denying specific access rights. */
> struct layers_denying_fs_access {
>   unsigned int truncate  : 4;
>   unsigned int ioctl_dev : 4;
> }
> 
> (Type name TBD, I am open for suggestions.)
> 
> I think if we accept that this data structure is specific to FS access
> rights, we win clarity in the code.  When I came across the code that
> put this together dynamically and in a more generic way, it took me a
> while to figure out what it did.

This change should help indeed (in a standalone patch).  Maybe we could
make the rest of the logic more generic in a way that it would be
simpler to add this kind of access right?