On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/30/2016 3:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Dan Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
>>> index 432bed5..3f6780b 100644
>>> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
>>> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
>>> @@ -1428,6 +1428,10 @@ struct ib_srq {
>>> } ext;
>>> };
>>>
>>> +struct ib_qp_security {
>>> + void *q_security;
>>> +};
>> Sorry, I missed this earlier and didn't realize it until I was going
>> through 4/12 ... why both with ib_qp_security? Why not just use a
>> straight void pointer?
>>
> In the RFC series Casey Schaufler asked me to not use void blobs to make module stacking easier.
I'm not entirely sure that is what he had in mind, but ...
> Also, in the IB/Core part of the series much is added to the ib_qp_security structure to track security info needed for proper enforcement.
... okay, I'll reserve further comment until I get there.
--
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.
