On Sunday 11 November 2007 5:34:27 pm James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Paul Moore wrote: > > + /* Between selinux_compat_net and selinux_policycap_netpeer this is > > + * starting to get a bit messy - we need to setup a timetable for > > + * deprecating some of this old/obsolete functionality so we can > > + * reclaim some level of sanity in this function. */ > > I don't think we can do anything which could potentially break userspace > now.
Yeah, I've already had one very long day as a result of that, I'm not in any hurry to do that again :) On a serious note, I thought we could remove specific features after a certain period of time, i.e. Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt? My thought is that eventually we can at least remove compat_net, or is that too drastic? > So, this one really needs to be right :-) Yeah, this is the one thing that still worries me and one of the main reasons I keep pushing RFC patches so often. Personally, I'm still a little frustrated at how ugly that function looks. I'm debating putting a check near the top to see if any of the "compatibility" flags are set, meaning an older policy, and if it is just handing off control to a compat function which handles all the ugliness. There might be some duplication of code but the sock_rcv_skb() function would be _much_ cleaner and faster in the "current policy" case. Actually, I think I just talked myself into it ... -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
