netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

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: <20130408.180810.204547968236959718.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:08:10 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	pmoore@...hat.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	mvadkert@...hat.com, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK
 packet

From: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:01:56 -0400

> Okay, if the objection is really just one of structure size and not the hooks, 
> what if I did the work to consolidate the skb->secmark and skb->sp fields into 
> a new structure/pointer?  Assuming it wasn't too painful, it would be a net 
> reduction of four bytes.  If that worked would you have an objection to us 
> adding a LSM security blob to this new structure?

'sp' is sepreate from LSM and making it indirect would hurt IPSEC
performance.

Please, really, just drop this.

Thanks.
--
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