Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

David Miller
2013-04-08T22:08:10Z

From: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:01:56 -0400

> Okay, if the objection is really just one of structure size and not the hooks,
> what if I did the work to consolidate the skb->secmark and skb->sp fields into
> a new structure/pointer? Assuming it wasn't too painful, it would be a net
> reduction of four bytes. If that worked would you have an objection to us
> adding a LSM security blob to this new structure?

'sp' is sepreate from LSM and making it indirect would hurt IPSEC
performance.

Please, really, just drop this.

Thanks.