On 17/03/2022 13:04, Mickaël Salaün wrote:

On 17/03/2022 02:26, Paul Moore wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

@@ -269,16 +270,188 @@ static inline bool is_nouser_or_private(const 

struct dentry *dentry)
                          
unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(d_backing_inode(dentry))));
  }

-static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const 
domain,
-               const struct path *const path,
+static inline access_mask_t get_handled_accesses(
+               const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
+{
+       access_mask_t access_dom = 0;
+       unsigned long access_bit;

Would it be better to declare @access_bit as an access_mask_t type?
You're not using any macros like for_each_set_bit() in this function
so I believe it should be safe.

Right, I'll change that.

Well, thinking about it again, access_bit is not an access mask but an 
index in such mask. access_mask_t gives enough space for such index but 
it is definitely not the right semantic. The best type should be size_t, 
but I prefer to stick to unsigned long (used for size_t anyway) for 
consistency with the other access_bit variable types. There is no need 
to use for_each_set_bit() here now but that could change, and I prefer 
to do my best to prevent future issues. ;)
Anyway, I guess the compiler can optimize such code.