[RFC PATCH v4 07/15] landlock: user space API network support

[Konstantin Meskhidze]

4/12/2022 4:48 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> 
> On 12/04/2022 13:21, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/2022 14:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> @@ -184,7 +185,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset,
>>>
>>>       /* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
>>>       if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS) !=
>>> -            LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>>> +             LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>>
>> Don't add cosmetic changes. FYI, I'm relying on the way Vim does line 
>> cuts, which is mostly tabs. Please try to do the same.
> 
> Well, let's make it simple and avoid tacit rules. I'll update most of 
> the existing Landlock code and tests to be formatted with clang-format 
> (-i *.[ch]), and I'll update the landlock-wip branch so that you can 
> base your next patch series on it. There should be some exceptions that 
> need customization but we'll see that in the next series. Anyway, don't 
> worry too much, just make sure you don't have style-only changes in your 
> patches.

   I have already rebased my next patch series on your landlock-wip 
branch. So I will wait for your changes meanwhile refactoring my v5 
patch series according your comments.

Also I want to discuss adding demo in sandboxer.c to show how landlock
supports network sandboxing:

	- Add additional args like "LL_NET_BIND=port1:...:portN"
	- Add additional args like "LL_NET_CONNECT=port1:...:portN"
	- execv 2 bash procceses:
	    1. first bash listens in loop - $ nc -l -k -p <port1> -v
	    2. second bash to connects the first one - $ nc <ip> <port>

What do you think? its possible to present this demo in the next v5 
patch series.	
	
> .