Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] landlock: Refactor layer masks

["Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>]

Hello!

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:31:07PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 08:58:50PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
> > P.S.: I am open to suggestions on what the "layer masks" variables
> > should be called, because the name "layer masks" might be less
> > appropriate after this change.  I have not fixed up the name
> > everywhere because fixing up the code took priority for now.
> 
> Could you please clarify your thoughts and explain why this name might
> not be appropriate anymore?  Any list of name proposals?
> 
> If we rename the variables, this should be done in the same refactoring
> patch.

When this was an array of layer_mask_t, the name layer_masks was a
description of that underlying data type.  Now that we have removed
the layer_mask_t datatype, it is not as obviously true any more.

When trying to name these variables after the "role" that they have in
their declaration context, I think of them as "unfulfilled per-layer
access requests", but that strikes me as a bit long.

For the upcoming patch set, I'm leaning towards naming these variables
just "masks", to keep it short.


> > Changes since previous versions:
> > 
> > V2: (This patch set)
> > 
> > * Remove the refactoring around the deny_mask_t type,
> >   it is better to send that as a separate patch (mic review)
> 
> Feel free to include the new dedicated patch in this series.

I'm afraid that this one did not get any further than what it already
was, and I'll have to leave it out for now.  But I have it on my TODO
list.

–Günther