On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > Macros would be nice for these ... > > I assume you mean the "0x80" and "0x08" constants and not the function > itself? Yes. > I ask because I remember reading that (macros == evil) because > of the lack of parameter type checking. > > > ... and why specify zero filling? (Setting and testing that would be > > wasted cycles, if you enforced it). > > Better alignment within the IP option field, the goal being to try and > get the secid aligned on a 32bit boundary. However, it just occurred > to me that by adding the two octets of padding I've actually pushed it > out of alignment (I forgot about the obligatory IP option type and > length octets). I mean, why specify zero-filled rather than simply "unused" ? > Man I hate IPv4 options, what a parsing nightmare ... It was all fixed with IPv6, right? :-) - James -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
