[PATCH v11 11/12] samples/landlock: Add network demo

[Konstantin Meskhidze (A)]

7/6/2023 5:35 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> 
> On 04/07/2023 14:33, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 7/3/2023 8:09 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2023 14:50, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 6/22/2023 1:18 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/06/2023 10:00, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6/19/2023 9:19 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/06/2023 16:24, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6/13/2023 11:38 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/2023 12:54, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 6/6/2023 6:17 PM, Günther Noack пишет:
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>>>>>>>         Thanks for a tip. I think it's a better solution here. Now this
>>>>>>>>>> commit is in Mickaёl's -next branch. I could send a one-commit patch later.
>>>>>>>>>> Mickaёl, what do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I removed this series from -next because there is some issues (see the
>>>>>>>>> bot's emails), but anyway, this doesn't mean these patches don't need to
>>>>>>>>> be changed, they do. The goal of -next is to test more widely a patch
>>>>>>>>> series and get more feedbacks, especially from bots. When this series
>>>>>>>>> will be fully ready (and fuzzed with syzkaller), I'll push it to Linus
>>>>>>>>> Torvalds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll review the remaining tests and sample code this week, but you can
>>>>>>>>> still take into account the documentation review.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       Hi, Mickaёl.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       I have a few quetions?
>>>>>>>>        - Are you going to fix warnings for bots, meanwhile I run syzcaller?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you need to fix that with the next series (except the Signed-off-by
>>>>>>> warnings).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Hi, Mickaёl.
>>>>>>       As I understand its possible to check bots warnings just after you
>>>>>> push the next V12 series again into your -next branch???
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we get bot warnings on the -next tree, but the command that
>>>>> generate it should be reproducible.
>>>>
>>>>      Stephen Rothwell sent a few warnings he got with powerpc
>>>> pseries_le_defconfig. Do I need to fix it in V12 patch? How can I handle
>>>> it cause no warnings in current .config?
>>>
>>> Yes, this need to be fixed in the next series. Could you point to the
>>> message?
>>>
>>     Here you are please:
>>        1.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20230607141044.1df56246@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> This issue is because the WARN_ON_ONCE() is triggered by any
> non-landlocked process, so removing the WARN_ON_ONCE() will fix that.
> 
   Got it. Will be fixed. Thanks.
> 
>> 
>>        2.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20230607135229.1f1e5c91@canb.auug.org.au/
> 
> Wrong printf format.
> 
   Ok. I will fix it.
> 
>>        3.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20230607124940.44af88bb@canb.auug.org.au/
> 
> It looks like htmldocs doesn't like #if in enum definition. Anyway, I
> think it should be better to not conditionally define an enum. I've
> pushed this change here: https://git.kernel.org/mic/c/8c96c7eee3ff
> (landlock-net-v11 branch)
> 
   Ok. Thank you.
> 
>> 
>>> I'm almost done with the test, I revamped code and I'll send that tomorrow.
>>>
>>     Ok.Thanks you. Please take your time. I will wait.
> 
> [...]
> .