On Wednesday, August 22 2007 5:08:05 pm David Miller wrote: > 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.
Okay, thought that was probably the case considering the efforts to shrink the sk_buff as much as possible. > 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 :-) Hey, I was just asking how much it cost ... but then again, you know the old adage, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" ;) Thanks. -- paul moore linux security @ hp - 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
