[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1500976778.2929.5.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:59:38 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: SELinux/IP_PASSSEC regression in 4.13-rcX
On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 22:00 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I'm happy to test this, but if you are curious, you can find the
> > selinux-testsuite at the link below; the "inet_socket" tests are the
> > ones relevant to this problem.
> >
> > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite
Thanks, I'll have a look.
> > However, I believe there is a problem with this patch, see below.
[...]
> > > -#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> > > +#define UDP_SKB_IS_STATELESS 0x80000000
> > > +
> > > static void udp_set_dev_scratch(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > {
> > > - struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch;
> > > + struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch = udp_skb_scratch(skb);
> > >
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct udp_dev_scratch) > sizeof(long));
> >
> > The BUILD_BUG_ON() assertion no longer appears to be correct with this patch.
>
> Nevermind, I just took a closer look at this and realized I made a
> mistake when applying your patch (had to apply manually for some
> reason). I'm building a test kernel now.
Yup, I compile-tested the code, plus some basic sanity checks, so the
build breakage felt unexpected.
Thanks for testing,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists