From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [RFC] Wild and crazy ideas involving struct sk_buff Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:36 -0400 Message-ID: <200708221726.36783.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <200708221631.34234.paul.moore@hp.com> <20070822212005.GR32236@postel.suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Graf Return-path: Received: from atlrel7.hp.com ([156.153.255.213]:51311 "EHLO atlrel7.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932603AbXHVV0z (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:26:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070822212005.GR32236@postel.suug.ch> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, August 22 2007 5:20:05 pm Thomas Graf wrote: > * Paul Moore 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