From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-190e.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-190e.mail.infomaniak.ch [185.125.25.14]) (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 33A7F15746F for ; Tue, 27 May 2025 14:53:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.125.25.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748357594; cv=none; b=pBgWE4OSeuJ1/wUMGD+LcvmWDURYPvx88hjNoPvw3jg/AmPnjd5lCGqxZ27uP33cqJLHCxZpr+9E3JiAYLRZgF+F9ZMVKwxJ+xki6TBXXNdM39tSz0dxC5yytaEa1T3ynVjHcoY4HgBdulYaTTADIBOW3RKUhM5Wr1QJTtNuVi4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748357594; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ts+DNvC6aCARNi8CCqKGhRgg/uvCbvowAbg/lEdcYKM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qJcdZtYO+9nGHZ7p9NaLiYGaDQ9YC/KZJ5W87uXIOsE2/5d+JXnPvNiHOSCTfdZzrvavNFr7gTHpHWext9D1SWizN9fuNKLq6MMs1wW0V5rlL5cukZiMjZDecBQ8Q+zG6iP9liRTthh8Y76m0pAMmE4GmbX6CsP3Nh0FHpBpl8k= 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=hOMyEtH+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.125.25.14 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="hOMyEtH+" Received: from smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch [10.4.36.107]) by smtp-3-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4b6FxL3rw3zjQQ; Tue, 27 May 2025 16:53:10 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=digikod.net; s=20191114; t=1748357590; bh=1SBVUrg0cCADJIOKz4taWQh9mQ/ZLQ2xSY/SCzI0ihM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hOMyEtH+vrdo9qsHe3FkJ6PMefegt4cQ7HVe53R71M4s6GcCmnaBdjlYgR81gAcxt TUee96xYrYlDzWgLu/l9tLYe5mjL3ywYkBZ+Xw1p4cZrpvBCD2hRUEsFtr+606Owjl FyKYpOjvBiAVb9yACrt9Ferw+aptIwyjn8VQaBnM= Received: from unknown by smtp-3-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4b6FxK6SsTzkK0; Tue, 27 May 2025 16:53:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 16:53:08 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Micka=C3=ABl_Sala=C3=BCn?= To: Tingmao Wang Cc: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack , Daniel Burgener , Jann Horn , Jeff Xu , Kees Cook , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Matthieu Buffet , Mikhail Ivanov , Ryan Sullivan , Shervin Oloumi , Steven Rostedt , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/5] landlock: Rename landlock_id to landlock_rule_ref Message-ID: <20250527.AhJ9Wuuc8vee@digikod.net> References: <20250523165741.693976-1-mic@digikod.net> <20250523165741.693976-2-mic@digikod.net> <112ec51d-523b-444b-ad7e-7b1b3d56507c@maowtm.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@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: <112ec51d-523b-444b-ad7e-7b1b3d56507c@maowtm.org> X-Infomaniak-Routing: alpha On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 07:38:00PM +0100, Tingmao Wang wrote: > On 5/23/25 17:57, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > [RFC PATCH v1 1/5] landlock: Rename landlock_id to landlock_rule_ref > > > > This avoids confusion with the new Landlock IDs. > > A very very minor suggestion, but I think to someone new, landlock_rule_ref > would sound like a reference to a specific rule (like a *struct > landlock_rule), but really it represents the "name", or in fact, target of a > rule... Maybe we should call it "landlock_rule_target"? > > (Or maybe the confusion is resolved quickly when they look at the definition > so maybe it doesn't matter) You're right that the name is confusing. What about just struct landlock_reference? Such structure do reference an element (an object or a raw value), which might be in a ruleset, a domain, or none of them. We should also probably use "ref=" instead of "object=" in the trace event. > > > > > TODO: Split in several commits to ease potential backports according to > > stable branches > > > > Cc: Günther Noack > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün > > --- > [...] >