From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-bc0b.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-bc0b.mail.infomaniak.ch [45.157.188.11]) (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 94F2940BCB0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.157.188.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781099065; cv=none; b=QBOsBJFfU5UEhJr/HRGduKFDJ0mX1nsrA88SDXiTyPXR6wAyc07djWJT0BOBbBuV6G2Mo0MFNo/ZjrGR+YfFZDFgH73eYO3XBazlGN4Io4szjlJ+sIT2HEtWUPFpwjMYS9SxpS4Fh/V62rrXXZmTByw6ABf1dyVZ8PBKiExhkdo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781099065; c=relaxed/simple; bh=b2fhGiQ39RkywcTGxw+njGWY7y2Oau+k+W96Snq3Vqo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VFpICrN2mrl7kPML3W/ikTFh9PVWKD+jACL5UeN7YZ6FjJeC61icyngq4lUjS4L5uvjDs7aJKaJFRtlNHxo/zMOCFk5gT0rjyT1vxSa/Cwk+PlDQfwRIunGTeM4DQFLU/7ZxsRd9l/Hd6ckiZRLlvT5XVRTl8uOvY47sZRZjVMA= 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=ljVR4W93; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.157.188.11 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="ljVR4W93" Received: from smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch [10.4.36.107]) by smtp-4-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gb6Sv3zngzWwy; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:44:15 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=digikod.net; s=20191114; t=1781099055; bh=tGvIv1PxKFKgMNI7mBH6ThJt1/SyIN0WohknYnyxHjc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ljVR4W93Ob1T/vqPxgcZjPH5QgfhhEY7BBDE8CvredZKItvZ8OvJf/fsEbliI9X1B /k/6ROazvuSLULGSj8uH0SuPMLwDXp0eglHwd24D4dAYpIJnUVvFPC/KcACKZk2V2e UXdwyQtyKFmhzNSEphz9oNkUDyBNmJLveNoKYp34= Received: from unknown by smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4gb6St5Z2gzXc9; Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:44:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:44:14 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Micka=C3=ABl_Sala=C3=BCn?= To: Matthieu Buffet Cc: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Mikhail Ivanov , konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com, Tingmao Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] landlock: Add UDP access control support Message-ID: <20260610.Civ6WieCupei@digikod.net> References: <20260502124306.3975990-1-matthieu@buffet.re> <20260522.saibiuZ5ailo@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 Sat, Jun 06, 2026 at 07:01:24PM +0200, Matthieu Buffet wrote: > Hi Mickaël, Günther, > > Thank you both for your reviews, I will follow up with these last fixes in a > v5. > > On 5/22/2026 11:08 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > I'm just not super happy about the clarity of logs generated for denied > > > autobinds ("domain=xxxxxx blockers=net.bind_udp"), due to the fact that > > > addresses and ports are currently only logged if they are non-0. A later > > > (coordinated LSM-wide) patch could improve readability by replacing != 0 > > > checks with new booleans in struct lsm_network_audit. > > > > Do you plan to send such patch after this series? I guess we could add > > has_{port,addr} fields to lsm_network_audit and handle AF_UNSPEC too? > > I have not come up with anything better than adding boolean fields, so if > you're in, I will draft a proposition along these lines (and cc: LSM > subsystem maintainers to synchronize the change across LSMs, I guess) This sounds good to me. > > > > I'm also not > > > exactly happy with the integration in existing TCP selftests, but > > > refactoring them has already been discussed earlier. > > > > Can you remind us what was your concern and the potential fix? > > Regarding TCP selftests, I was referencing that discussion about readability > (length, and usage of conditionals in what are already test variants) : > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/22dcebae-dc5d-0bf1-c686-d2f444558106@huawei-partners.com/ > Nothing blocking, refactoring can be done when things are less busy. Yes, let's keep that in mind and discuss it once this patch series is merged. > > -- > Matthieu >