From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:00:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1392983.dvWWkBd8H0@sifl> References: <1365520026.3887.139.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1365521576.3887.147.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130409.125635.1837917915399498838.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mvadkert@redhat.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130409.125635.1837917915399498838.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:56:35 PM David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:32:56 -0700 > > > It looks like _I_ have to do your work. Sorry, I have no more time to > > spend on this topic. You'll have to convince David, not me. > > I already have no interest in considering these changes seriously, > and I've already asked Paul multiple times to drop this idea. If we address all of your technical concerns, why are you not interested in allowing a security blob in the sk_buff? -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat