From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Lindahl Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add security_socket_post_accept() and security_socket_post_recv_datagram(). Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:10:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20090422061006.GB27688@bx9.net> References: <200904220055.n3M0tQ6T048840@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20090421.181411.26595688.davem@davemloft.net> <20090422015228.GA13312@bx9.net> <20090421.212342.235921625.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, paul.moore@hp.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from rc.bx9.net ([64.13.160.15]:27086 "EHLO rc.bx9.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752469AbZDVGKI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:10:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090421.212342.235921625.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:23:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > I said explicitly that hard errors are allows (out of file > descriptors, memory allocation failure) I have no idea what you meant by a "hard" error. Note that I also discussed EAGAIN, which appears to happen commonly historically and today, and appears to be what the security module folks would want to have happen and you're rejecting. Do you consider that to be a hard error? I'm betting not. -- greg