On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Jurgens <dani...@mellanox.com> wrote: > On 6/30/2016 3:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Dan Jurgens <dani...@mellanox.com> wrote: >> >>> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>> index 432bed5..3f6780b 100644 >>> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>> @@ -1428,6 +1428,10 @@ struct ib_srq { >>> } ext; >>> }; >>> >>> +struct ib_qp_security { >>> + void *q_security; >>> +}; >> Sorry, I missed this earlier and didn't realize it until I was going >> through 4/12 ... why both with ib_qp_security? Why not just use a >> straight void pointer? >> > In the RFC series Casey Schaufler asked me to not use void blobs to make > module stacking easier.
I'm not entirely sure that is what he had in mind, but ... > Also, in the IB/Core part of the series much is added to the ib_qp_security > structure to track security info needed for proper enforcement. ... okay, I'll reserve further comment until I get there. -- paul moore security @ redhat _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@tycho.nsa.gov To unsubscribe, send email to selinux-le...@tycho.nsa.gov. To get help, send an email containing "help" to selinux-requ...@tycho.nsa.gov.