On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 10:45 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 22:00 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > I'm happy to test this, but if you are curious, you can find the > > > > selinux-testsuite at the link below; the "inet_socket" tests are the > > > > ones relevant to this problem. > > > > > > > > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite > > > > Thanks, I'll have a look. > > > > > > However, I believe there is a problem with this patch, see below. > > > > [...] > > > > > > > -#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64 > > > > > +#define UDP_SKB_IS_STATELESS 0x80000000 > > > > > + > > > > > static void udp_set_dev_scratch(struct sk_buff *skb) > > > > > { > > > > > - struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch; > > > > > + struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch = udp_skb_scratch(skb); > > > > > > > > > > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct udp_dev_scratch) > sizeof(long)); > > > > > > > > The BUILD_BUG_ON() assertion no longer appears to be correct with this patch. > > > > > > Nevermind, I just took a closer look at this and realized I made a > > > mistake when applying your patch (had to apply manually for some > > > reason). I'm building a test kernel now. > > > > Yup, I compile-tested the code, plus some basic sanity checks, so the > > build breakage felt unexpected. > > > > Thanks for testing, > > I just did a quick run through the selinux-testsuite and the > regression would appear to be fixed, thanks! I'm guessing you'll send > this to DaveM so we can get this fixed before v4.13 is released? > > Tested-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sure. I'll submit soon for -net. Cheers, Paolo
