On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 02:56:05PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> 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().
Ok, I'll leave this as it as for v3, and the network guys can shout if
they want me to change it.
Huw.
_______________________________________________
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.
