From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 807C03451BD for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 07:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770364183; cv=none; b=K2NqrqqbPbldTmd8AEOu0bpWj8kYJdiZ24BBK7QZXvFUuNvOjyjk+6YK3KWEgF2yuXIwA+Uxzxn9ZSI/pqRI0Ve3O67eyMff2AZ1eqxPc7RsD5tqR7qj7ulFVi6l8VzeBo/SzZ0YtLbeJSX7wRdI8/fSmRSgkr+tbWRmDDMzMzI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770364183; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ichyTyguPgigBiw1zt6Jd1uaxfKj28WdJ/QrgAACPeI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mFdv5d3jIGnXc6atSW6cwuvRPOANTc1SVYi5fyBh5c6w6tpelGn9NV92SLKDvovUYX8+CjrHt3z3+VtUp2W0czWqa4JMD9x9G9U8+dz5rWaKnwd1OopdQkGCALZvQe02GDfaUxdEcJsN5ejwQx7CfCdBe6FdqggOzHLyhLe3VpY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=UxHRsF6I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UxHRsF6I" Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4806b43beb6so3790625e9.3 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2026 23:49:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1770364182; x=1770968982; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I7F/ZeL0mxRV2y1m2mFdPul2p2bxP7mRx3qr6IIzHbE=; b=UxHRsF6IrNLBIBr/KTHE3jIMmIMyjUp/LHv5Ncinh6wUqYnl3Em1gaTfafHm95zHWn EjmIpGvPS8RWhBmELoTmdPlBXC2+LeJD9YmQ62W9AA40XJcnOcII8JqVZM8K9HWbg0DP bnk2tWmHbQ4VF37OlowUYsWGswr8xk2fiBzT4WmVwAsA1zEM9BljXc8Ua9pSYjb8LtrW eGTwosjAN4Etn68zS+LLEnix+D+pdVIv6TmSvkATO7iI3k02Hgqai10e52n24XGjrcTt rrAzJwWT7K9YUxKiL8ZI0cx3u9oUT7SXE8XrHnnDeaBNo06KG3HoCoP5mcaYstvcvICK dJSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1770364182; x=1770968982; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I7F/ZeL0mxRV2y1m2mFdPul2p2bxP7mRx3qr6IIzHbE=; b=qv6LpGRzPkMW+lsK4ncbhXtUM7gHAY9prZwCsQ24IKY3YoSy/q1SQPTd1uoDearhb9 0ZQXprOB6QOhecE9dJ1sos3TepWMRAIcv9OfG//xxD79gyuvQE491qd1j7znS5qO0bF2 Zil0Bck2ehw+G8X9BuBNdPv3f7w8BZcr4UOxR2VCZHg4p6RQZ7dR09bCNgQkYpYZ5yj4 A999n+mFz4b7ziOfVNv/VLYHP3tk6OGiH1LYJnNJE29RBLWR7O+2sG7m3hSVxG/pOR5F kQdeZOBfQT+dDZZGTaeIW1hy3gYp/YYuDmgnqVqLkE45lqkI1JBwstA36b+t/Qs1EDEQ 83RA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxA2Rgv5ehFRbS/obdmC52uhL788/KI+nOCk9vm80jRyI3OAk2q 5TVhoqCQUgfvDKUYw4KduBRKTUvnJNkNC+KC7asaFSzfjtmDPBZV14M4 X-Gm-Gg: AZuq6aK9t4KAds0eou+CdqVn2rpt1BOiDNnjMr8P7fohm8tEzFiCsjEL/fVhmATeWY+ 4FrIfiGaGhbE4SdSZ5LhqUrJ9bmrxN8nNIH475/GB+l+hCt6ejIJb4PZbnZSYfMzpCmsH3t0Rfe BWKUYhtKO1KeCaR+rx7qt/z5qGX0c9yF8BhJchF6gJe6nE1lQfBOSePrsW7geb01NvlC3fE5gdv Ge6ZBmr8+opSgPuCdIH0dWm/4SjkMoEaCInRHUMVmjEPAn9A7jW0cMHsPF+haY/Az9J7Ox/cXVe l1bvgLYOAs0n3hQComU6iipbaEm84rG0RNVpknBoCVFRahJnnK1Q0JZAczTvyvxjNtxfy+OQ+Ig NFh3fsJAOskcdCICGHuSTGrWGRjQzaSYMZ6eHHQoK5tBPlyI8e7cWDuYxemamvlYu7HFuSKdVD7 sT4bcDr8+h7YL6ZE1BosF/KBgdFUwWSPo041+f X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8b26:b0:46e:59bd:f7d3 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-48320216165mr22318155e9.20.1770364181655; Thu, 05 Feb 2026 23:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip87-106-108-193.pbiaas.com. [87.106.108.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-483209cfd77sm12041745e9.14.2026.02.05.23.49.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 05 Feb 2026 23:49:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 08:49:39 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?= Noack To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Tingmao Wang , Justin Suess , Samasth Norway Ananda , Matthieu Buffet , Mikhail Ivanov , konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com, Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] landlock: Refactor layer masks Message-ID: <20260206.a8bf33606ef0@gnoack.org> References: <20260125195853.109967-1-gnoack3000@gmail.com> <20260128.jiethoh2Zeem@digikod.net> <20260206.9509420815f5@gnoack.org> 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: <20260206.9509420815f5@gnoack.org> On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 08:32:06AM +0100, Günther Noack wrote: > 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. OK, staring at the code a bit longer, I realize that since the type is now named "struct layer_access_masks", "layer_masks" is actually still a reasonable shorthand. I have abbreviated that to "masks" in some places where it is anyway clear from the context that those are the layer access masks, but left it as "layer_masks" in places where we also use other access masks, for disambiguation. –Günther