On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> 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 -- 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.
