On Wednesday 01 October 2008 6:12:16 pm James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > > ... 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" ? Gotcha. Yes, "unused" or "reserved" would be much better but it is kinda moot right now anyway since the Right Thing is to just remove the padding entirely. > > Man I hate IPv4 options, what a parsing nightmare ... > > It was all fixed with IPv6, right? :-) That is what the brochure says :) -- paul moore linux @ hp -- 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.
