netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

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: <CAHC9VhTM_a+L8nY8QLVdA1FcL8hjdV1ZNLJcr6G_Q27qPD_5EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:44:02 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with
 xfrm flow

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:09 PM James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note
> in the header instead?

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:14 AM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Please at least change to the struct flowi to flowi_common if we're
> not adding a family field.

It did feel a bit weird adding a (currently) unused parameter, so I
can understand the concern, I just worry that a comment in the code
will be easily overlooked.  I also thought about passing a pointer to
the nested flowi_common struct, but it doesn't appear that this is
done anywhere else in the stack so it felt wrong to do it here.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com