On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 09:30 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > >> In the case of a TCP syn-recv and timewait ACK things are a little less >> clear. >> Eric (Dumazet), it looks like we have a socket in tcp_v4_reqsk_send_ack() and >> tcp_v4_timewait_ack(), any reason why we can't propagate the socket down to >> ip_send_unicast_reply()? >> > > timewait 'sockets' are not full blown sockets. > > We need a socket (well, a good part of it) to build the IP frame and > send it.
Yes, of course you're right. Ideally we need a better solution here from a LSM perspective, but I don't think this should hold up the fix as the labeling was broken even before the postroute_compat() code broke. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
