On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:51:30PM GMT, Günther Noack wrote: > Hello Alejandro! Hi! > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:31:21PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 04:19:18PM GMT, Günther Noack wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 03:03:13PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:19:16AM GMT, Günther Noack wrote: > > > > > @@ -143,8 +151,8 @@ was not a valid address. > > > > > .TP > > > > > .B ENOMSG > > > > > Empty accesses (i.e., > > > > > -.I attr\->handled_access_fs > > > > > -is 0). > > > > > +.I attr > > > > > +did not specify any access rights to restrict). > > > > > > > > This looks like a wording fix, isn't it? If so, it might be worth a > > > > separate patch. > > > > Ping. > > Thanks, I missed that. > > It is not a pure wording fix, but it corrects an overly specific error > description that does not hold any more in the case of Landlock ABI version 4. > > With the introduction of Landlock ABI v4, attr->handled_access_fs is not > technically accurate any more, but it can also be attr->handled_access_net(!) > now, in the case where someone uses these new networking features. So I made > the phrasing a bit more general to cover both. Makes sense; thanks! > > > It depends on your answer to the pinged question above. I'll apply this patch set, and amend the s/i/I/ myself. Have a lovely day! Alex > > Sounds good. > > Thanks for the review! > —Günther > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
