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 <gno...@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <m...@digikod.net> > > --- > [...] >
