On Wednesday, August 22 2007 5:20:05 pm Thomas Graf wrote: > * Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-08-22 16:31 > > > 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? > > This reminds of an idea someone brought up a while ago, it involved > having a way to attach additional space to an sk_buff for all the > different marks and other non-essential fields.
Interesting. Was it just a thought, or was there some actual design/code/patchset to go along with it that described the idea? -- 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
