What is that suppose to mean? Are you suggesting that for the dubious privilege
of seeing secmark=<selctx> - the way it should have been developed in the first
place - as oppose to secmark=XXX as was the case up until now, I have to
install your set of tools? I don't think so!
The trend is clear. If we were procfs fanboys, we would not need
sysfs. Or securityfs. Or debugfs. We'd have everything in /proc.
Please read again what I wrote above. Where did I state that I need
"everything in /proc"? I am merely suggesting a fix for what should have
been released in the first place by correcting the value of secmark to
show the proper context instead of a number which means absolutely
nothing to anyone.
You can think whatever you want.
I find the above rather condescending - what is that supposed to mean? I
think that you need a bit of help with anger management.
It's just hypocritical wanting to
add a feature to an infrastructure that practically every developer
consented to not abuse further.
Again, read what I wrote above - I do not ask for an addition, just a
simple correction of something which should have been done properly in
the first place. How is that "hypocritical"?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
