| To: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] BSD Jail LSM (2/3) |
| From: | hallyn@xxxxxxxxx (Serge E. Hallyn) |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:08:51 -0400 |
| Cc: | Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1095072996.14355.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1094847705.2188.94.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1094847787.2188.101.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1094844708.18107.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040912233342.GA12097@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1095072996.14355.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6i |
Quoting Alan Cox (alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Llu, 2004-09-13 at 00:33, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Right now one must choose between either an ipv4 or ipv6 interface. > > Is typical ipv6 usage such that it would be preferable to be able to > > specify one of each? > > Its normal to have both yes. > > A more interesting question is whether all of the "which socket for > which use" stuff could be addressed by netfilter chains run at > bind/connect time ? You mean to add two new netfilter hooks? Would these then replace the LSM hooks? -serge |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [BK PATCH] [IPV6] Merge Specification Conformity Improvements, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] NETIF_F_LLTX for devices 2, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] BSD Jail LSM (2/3), Alan Cox |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] BSD Jail LSM, Serge Hallyn |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |