Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\[SELINUX\]\s+2\/2\s+sock_create

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\[SELINUX\]\s+2\/2\s+sock_create_lite\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:06:04 -0400 (EDT); This patch adds a function sock_create_lite(), deprecating kernel-wide use of sock_alloc(), which has been made static to net/socket.c. The purpose of this is to allow sockets created by the kernel i; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00045.html (13,760 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:14:56 +0100; We're in the stable series and removing exported APIs there shoudn't happen. Given that sock_alloc() is actually okay for every normal use I don't think there's enough reason to remove it from the AP; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00046.html (9,727 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:21:52 -0400 (EDT); Fair enough. sock_create() is really very different to sock_alloc(), and the only real duplication is calling the LSM hooks. The version I sent seems to be the simplest approach. (note that __sock_cr; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00047.html (9,002 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 15:53:30 -0400 (EDT); Ok, here's a version of this patch which doesn't do anything with sock_alloc(). diff -urN -X dontdiff linux-2.6.6-rc3-mm2.p/include/linux/net.h linux-2.6.6-rc3-mm2.w/include/linux/net.h -- linux-2.6.; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00050.html (13,921 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 15:04:32 -0700; Applied, although I had to hand-edit the patch since you accidently included the following bit from the first SELINUX patch of this series :-); /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00059.html (8,750 bytes)
6. [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:06:04 -0400 (EDT); This patch adds a function sock_create_lite(), deprecating kernel-wide use of sock_alloc(), which has been made static to net/socket.c. The purpose of this is to allow sockets created by the kernel i; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00563.html (13,829 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:14:56 +0100; We're in the stable series and removing exported APIs there shoudn't happen. Given that sock_alloc() is actually okay for every normal use I don't think there's enough reason to remove it from the AP; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00564.html (9,935 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:21:52 -0400 (EDT); Fair enough. sock_create() is really very different to sock_alloc(), and the only real duplication is calling the LSM hooks. The version I sent seems to be the simplest approach. (note that __sock_cr; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00565.html (9,031 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 15:53:30 -0400 (EDT); Ok, here's a version of this patch which doesn't do anything with sock_alloc(). diff -urN -X dontdiff linux-2.6.6-rc3-mm2.p/include/linux/net.h linux-2.6.6-rc3-mm2.w/include/linux/net.h -- linux-2.6.; /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00568.html (13,969 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH][SELINUX] 2/2 sock_create_lite() (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 15:04:32 -0700; Applied, although I had to hand-edit the patch since you accidently included the following bit from the first SELINUX patch of this series :-); /archives/netdev/2004-05/msg00577.html (8,894 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]