netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 19/19] landlock: Document socket rule type support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zv7EbY2v6aElb5BI@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 18:21:01 +0200
From: "Günther Noack" <gnoack@...gle.com>
To: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>
Cc: mic@...ikod.net, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, gnoack3000@...il.com, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, yusongping@...wei.com, 
	artem.kuzin@...wei.com, konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 19/19] landlock: Document socket rule type support

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 05:00:14PM +0300, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> On 10/1/2024 10:09 AM, Günther Noack wrote:
> > IMHO, the length of the "Defining and enforcing a security policy" section is
> > slowly getting out of hand.  This was easier to follow when it was only file
> > system rules. -- I wonder whether we should split this up in subsections for the
> > individual steps to give this a more logical outline, e.g.
> > 
> > * Creating a ruleset
> > * Adding rules to the ruleset
> >    * Adding a file system rule
> >    * Adding a network rule
> >    * Adding a socket rule
> > * Enforcing the ruleset
> 
> I agree, it's important to keep usage usage description as simple as it
> possible. Should I include related commit in current patchset?

Sure, sounds good to me. 👍

—Günther