On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 04:07:16 +1100 (AEDT) James Morris wrote:
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:36:29 +0100 Florian Westphal wrote:
> > A followup change to tcp_request_sock_op would have to drop the
> > qualifier from the 'route_req' function as the
> > 'security_inet_conn_request' call is moved there - and that function
> > expects a 'struct sock *'.
> > However, it turns out its also possible to add a const qualifier to
> > security_inet_conn_request instead.
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw(a)strlen.de>
> > ---
> > The code churn is unfortunate. Alternative would be to change
> > the function signature of ->route_req:
> > struct dst_entry *(*route_req)(struct sock *sk, ...
> > [ i.e., drop 'const' ]. Thoughts?
> Security folks - is this okay to merge into net-next?
> We can put it on a branch and pull into both trees if the risk
> of conflicts is high.
Acked-by: James Morris <jamorris(a)linux.microsoft.com>
Into net-next it goes..