From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from jazzhorn.ncsc.mil (mummy.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.129]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kAOJ0I4J006127 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:00:18 -0500 Received: from mailhub.hp.com (jazzhorn.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.9]) by jazzhorn.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kAOIxbN7001815 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:59:37 GMT From: "Paul Moore" Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] NetLabel: use cipso_v4_doi_search() for local CIPSOv4 functions Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:59:00 -0500 To: Message-ID: <3247221600.11766119@mail.hp.com> Cc: , , , , Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov -----Original Message----- From: Al Viro Date: Friday, Nov 24, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] NetLabel: use cipso_v4_doi_search() for local CIPSOv4 functions On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:24:34PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote: > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:38 -0500, paul.moore@hp.com wrote: > > > Index: net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > > =================================================================== > > --- net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work.orig/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > > +++ net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > > @@ -1136,7 +1136,7 @@ int cipso_v4_validate(unsigned char **op > > } > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > - doi_def = cipso_v4_doi_getdef(ntohl(*((__be32 *)&opt[2]))); > > + doi_def = cipso_v4_doi_search(ntohl(*((u32 *)&opt[2]))); > > if (doi_def == NULL) { > > err_offset = 2; > > goto validate_return_locked; > > > This appears to reverse the previous endian work by Al Viro, was this > intended? > >Mismerge, most likely. Fixed in net-2.6.20 since then ( >commit 835ec2525544c744333bf0da00049f323eb75c58 >Author: Al Viro >Date: Mon Nov 20 18:08:37 2006 -0800 > > [CIPSO]: Missing annotation in cipso_ipv4 update. >) > >Note that there are two changes in that line - u32 -> __be32 and >..._getdef -> ..._search. They do not really conflict, but any merge tool would throw a conflict at that point and apparently it got >resolved the dumb way... > Yep, Al is right, I just made a dumb mistake when merging my code with the latest net-2.6.20 tree. I thought I caught everything but it looks like I missed one. Sorry. . paul moore . linux security @ hp -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul Moore" Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] NetLabel: use cipso_v4_doi_search() for local CIPSOv4 functions Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:59:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3247221600.11766119@mail.hp.com> Cc: , , , , Return-path: Received: from mailhub.hp.com ([192.151.27.10]:46254 "EHLO mailhub.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935010AbWKXTAi (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:00:38 -0500 To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org -----Original Message----- From: Al Viro Date: Friday, Nov 24, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] NetLabel: use cipso_v4_doi_search() for local CIPSOv4 functions On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:24:34PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote: > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:38 -0500, paul.moore@hp.com wrote: > > > Index: net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > > =================================================================== > > --- net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work.orig/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > > +++ net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c > > @@ -1136,7 +1136,7 @@ int cipso_v4_validate(unsigned char **op > > } > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > - doi_def = cipso_v4_doi_getdef(ntohl(*((__be32 *)&opt[2]))); > > + doi_def = cipso_v4_doi_search(ntohl(*((u32 *)&opt[2]))); > > if (doi_def == NULL) { > > err_offset = 2; > > goto validate_return_locked; > > > This appears to reverse the previous endian work by Al Viro, was this > intended? > >Mismerge, most likely. Fixed in net-2.6.20 since then ( >commit 835ec2525544c744333bf0da00049f323eb75c58 >Author: Al Viro >Date: Mon Nov 20 18:08:37 2006 -0800 > > [CIPSO]: Missing annotation in cipso_ipv4 update. >) > >Note that there are two changes in that line - u32 -> __be32 and >..._getdef -> ..._search. They do not really conflict, but any merge tool would throw a conflict at that point and apparently it got >resolved the dumb way... > Yep, Al is right, I just made a dumb mistake when merging my code with the latest net-2.6.20 tree. I thought I caught everything but it looks like I missed one. Sorry. . paul moore . linux security @ hp