On Friday, January 08, 2016 09:52:44 AM Huw Davies wrote:
> The functionality is equivalent to ipv6_renew_options() except
> that the newopt pointer is in kernel, not user, memory
>
> The kernel memory implementation will be used by the CALIPSO network
> labelling engine, which needs to be able to set IPv6 hop-by-hop
> options.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huw Davies <huw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
> +/**
> + * ipv6_renew_options_kern - replace a specific ext hdr with a new one.
> + *
> + * @sk: sock from which to allocate memory
> + * @opt: original options
> + * @newtype: option type to replace in @opt
> + * @newopt: new option of type @newtype to replace (kernel-mem)
> + * @newoptlen: length of @newopt
> + *
> + * See ipv6_renew_options(). The difference is that @newopt is
> + * kernel memory, rather than user memory.
> + */
> +struct ipv6_txoptions *
> +ipv6_renew_options_kern(struct sock *sk, struct ipv6_txoptions *opt,
> + int newtype, struct ipv6_opt_hdr *newopt,
> + int newoptlen)
> +{
> + struct ipv6_txoptions *ret_val;
> + const mm_segment_t old_fs = get_fs();
> +
> + set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
> + ret_val = ipv6_renew_options(sk, opt, newtype,
> + (struct ipv6_opt_hdr __user *)newopt,
> + newoptlen);
> + set_fs(old_fs);
> + return ret_val;
> +}
I should preface this by saying that I don't have a strong opinion on this
either way, and given where the code lives it is really up to DaveM, but I
wonder if it might be better to create ipv6_renew_options_kern() as the common
helper function that is called by ipv6_renew_options().
--
paul moore
security @ redhat
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
