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

[Konstantin Meskhidze]

4/12/2022 7:10 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> 
> On 12/04/2022 16:05, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Good.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> This looks good! I think LL_TCP_BIND and LL_TCP_CONNECT would fit better 
> though.
>   Got it. Thanks
> I'm not sure if I already said that, but please remove the "RFC " part 
> for the next series.
   Ok.
> .