Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <0be9b4c6-3e32-3d18-1715-aaadd6324701@digikod.net>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 11:45:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: 
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220506160513.523257-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <CANiq72=SWen7sJxvQGD5N=ur-gpOiFGeHHfjegHxjaHfN_i95Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] Landlock: Clean up coding style with clang-format
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72=SWen7sJxvQGD5N=ur-gpOiFGeHHfjegHxjaHfN_i95Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 09/05/2022 11:06, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Mickaël,
> 
> (Answering in v1 since I want to quote something in this cover letter)

There is only a v1 for this specific series, but other series (with 
higher versions) are now relying on this one. ;)

> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 6:03 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>
>> I used a simple coding style for the initial Landlock code.  However,
>> this may be subject to different interpretations.  To avoid relying
>> on tacit knowledge or text editors for these kind of rules, let's
>> automate it as much as possible thanks to clang-format.  This makes the
>> code formatting simple, consistent and impersonal.
> 
> Thanks for moving your subsystem to `clang-format`. I am glad you
> found it useful.
> 
>> Several versions of clang-format can be use but they may have (small)
>> different behaviors for undefined/new configuration parts.  After
>> testing different versions, I picked clang-format-14 which is relatively
>> new and fixes a bug present in version 11 to 13 (visible in the Landlock
>> formatted code).
> 
> Which was the bug?

You can check it by running clang-format-X on security/landlock/fs.c [1] 
and you'll get different results for this hunk (only):

--- a/security/landlock/fs.c
+++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
@@ -688,7 +688,7 @@ static inline access_mask_t maybe_remove(const 
struct dentry *const dentry)
  	if (d_is_negative(dentry))
  		return 0;
  	return d_is_dir(dentry) ? LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_DIR :
-				  LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_FILE;
+					LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REMOVE_FILE;
  }

  /**


[1] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mic/linux.git/log/?h=landlock-wip