On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:58 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/4/2020 2:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:35 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 9/4/2020 1:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote: ... > > I understand the concerns you mention, they are all valid as far as > > I'm concerned, but I think we are going to get burned by this code as > > it currently stands. > > Yes, I can see that. We're getting burned by the non-extensibility > of secids. It will take someone smarter than me to figure out how to > fit N secids into 32bits without danger of either failure or memory > allocation. Sooo what are the next steps here? It sounds like there is some agreement that the currently proposed unix_skb_params approach is a problem, but it also sounds like you just want to merge it anyway? I was sorta hoping for something a bit better. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
