On Thursday 2010-09-23 23:38, Mr Dash Four wrote: > >>> 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"? Nowhere! It was a reply with the linguistic element of cynism, in case that was missed, or not explicitly marked with smilies or other symbolic figured indicating such. >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. Exactly. Since the number is useless to most people, the procfs file practically never had the feature "display useful secmark". Which means that changing it is a feature addition rather than a bugfix. -- 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
