On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:50 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > Yep. I was just trying to see if there was a way we could avoid having to > make it conditional on CONFIG_SECURITY, but I think this is a better approach > than the alternatives. > > I'm also looking into making sure we get a sane LSM label on the per-cpu sock > as security_sk_alloc() just allocates and initializes the LSM blob to a basic > starting value (unlabeled_t in the case of SELinux) ... that is likely to be > the tricky bit.
It seems previous code did the same thing in sk_prot_alloc() ? > > Regardless, I'm okay with us merging the patch below now to fix the panic and > I'll supply a follow-up patch to fix the labeling once I figure out a > solution > that seems reasonable. Does that work for you? David? > > Acked-by: Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> John, could you confirm this fixes the problem ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
