netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 15/16] cipso: Add support for native local labeling and fixup mapping names

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]

Date:	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:12:16 +1000 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
cc:	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 15/16] cipso: Add support for native local labeling
 and fixup mapping names

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Paul Moore wrote:

> > Macros would be nice for these ...
> 
> I assume you mean the "0x80" and "0x08" constants and not the function 
> itself? 

Yes.

> I ask because I remember reading that (macros == evil) because 
> of the lack of parameter type checking.
> 
> > ... and why specify zero filling?  (Setting and testing that would be
> > wasted cycles, if you enforced it). 
> 
> Better alignment within the IP option field, the goal being to try and 
> get the secid aligned on a 32bit boundary.  However, it just occurred 
> to me that by adding the two octets of padding I've actually pushed it 
> out of alignment (I forgot about the obligatory IP option type and 
> length octets).

I mean, why specify zero-filled rather than simply "unused" ?

> Man I hate IPv4 options, what a parsing nightmare ...

It was all fixed with IPv6, right? :-)


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html