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: <1365521576.3887.147.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:32:56 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Cc:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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

On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 11:17 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:

> The "blob" is a void pointer, so 8 bytes.  We're talking about removing the 
> "secmark" field (4 bytes) and adding a void pointer (8 bytes).  I've shown 
> several different approaches that make this change without increasing the 
> overall size of the sk_buff struct.

You want to use 4 extra bytes in sk_buff. You'll have to show us why we
close the way for other valid uses of the current holes.

I have no idea why its needed, and why it can't be solved in another
way.

It looks like _I_ have to do your work. Sorry, I have no more time to
spend on this topic. You'll have to convince David, not me.



--
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