From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F62C433FE for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 10:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348952AbiDLKFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:05:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1389767AbiDLJYI (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2022 05:24:08 -0400 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2143956227; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fraeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KczYz579yz67Zy6; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:35:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.122.132.241] (10.122.132.241) by fraeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 10:38:34 +0200 Message-ID: <5a229249-fd4a-76ee-ec94-5f29ca3a245c@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:38:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 08/15] landlock: add support network rules Content-Language: ru To: =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= CC: , , , , , , References: <20220309134459.6448-1-konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com> <20220309134459.6448-9-konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com> <06f9ca1f-6e92-9d71-4097-e43b2f77b937@digikod.net> <8e279be2-5092-ad34-2f8d-ca77ee5a10fd@huawei.com> <6f9d82ed-081e-a6e4-5876-6af7db180ba1@digikod.net> From: Konstantin Meskhidze In-Reply-To: <6f9d82ed-081e-a6e4-5876-6af7db180ba1@digikod.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.122.132.241] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.204) To fraeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.53) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org 4/11/2022 7:20 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет: > > On 11/04/2022 15:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote: >> >> >> 4/8/2022 7:30 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет: > > [...] > > >>>>   struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const struct >>>> landlock_access_mask *access_mask_set) >>>>   { >>>>       struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset; >>>> >>>>       /* Informs about useless ruleset. */ >>>> -    if (!access_mask_set->fs) >>>> +    if (!access_mask_set->fs && !access_mask_set->net) >>>>           return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG); >>>>       new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1); >>>> -    if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset)) >>> >>> This is better: >>> >>> if (IS_ERR(new_ruleset)) >>>      return new_ruleset; >>> if (access_mask_set->fs) >>> ... >> >>    I dont get this condition. Do you mean that we return new_ruleset >> anyway no matter what the masks's values are? So its possible to have >> 0 masks values, is't it? > > No, the logic is correct but it would be simpler to exit as soon as > there is a ruleset error, you don't need to duplicate > "IS_ERR(new_ruleset) &&": > > if (IS_ERR(new_ruleset)) >     return new_ruleset; > if (access_mask_set->fs) >     landlock_set_fs_access_mask(new_ruleset, access_mask_set, 0); > if (access_mask_set->net) >     landlock_set_net_access_mask(new_ruleset, access_mask_set, 0); > return new_ruleset; > Ok. I got it. Thank you. > .