From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 15/16] cipso: Add support for native local labeling and fixup mapping names Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:13:26 -0400 Message-ID: <200810012213.26916.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20080916124722.17132.38741.stgit@flek.lan> <200810011305.04872.paul.moore@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: James Morris Return-path: Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:26684 "EHLO g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbYJBCNa (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:13:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 01 October 2008 6:12:16 pm James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > > ... and why specify zero filling? (Setting and testing that > > > would be wasted cycles, if you enforced it). > > > > Better alignment within the IP option field, the goal being to try > > and get the secid aligned on a 32bit boundary. However, it just > > occurred to me that by adding the two octets of padding I've > > actually pushed it out of alignment (I forgot about the obligatory > > IP option type and length octets). > > I mean, why specify zero-filled rather than simply "unused" ? Gotcha. Yes, "unused" or "reserved" would be much better but it is kinda moot right now anyway since the Right Thing is to just remove the padding entirely. > > Man I hate IPv4 options, what a parsing nightmare ... > > It was all fixed with IPv6, right? :-) That is what the brochure says :) -- paul moore linux @ hp