From: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:31:34 -0400
> We're currently talking about several different ideas to solve the problem, > including leveraging the sk_buff.secmark field, and one of the ideas was to > add an additional field to the sk_buff structure. Knowing how well that idea > would go over (lead balloon is probably an understatement at best) I started > looking at what I might be able to remove from the sk_buff struct to make > room for a new field (the new field would be a u32). Looking at the sk_buff > structure it appears that the sk_buff.dev and sk_buff.iif fields are a bit > redundant and removing the sk_buff.dev field could free 32/64 bits depending > on the platform. Is there any reason (performance?) for keeping the > sk_buff.dev field around? Would the community be open to patches which > removed it and transition users over to the sk_buff.iif field? Finally, > assuming the sk_buff.dev field was removed, would the community be open to > adding a new LSM/SELinux related u32 field to the sk_buff struct? It's there for performance, and I bet there might be some semantic issues involved. And ironically James Morris still owes me a struct sk_buff removal from when I let him put the "secmark" thing in there! Stop spending money you guys haven't earned yet :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
