On Friday 16 November 2007 10:45:32 pm Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > I might be missing something here, but why do you need to do a skb_peek() > > again? You already have the skb and the sock, just do the unlink. > > The skb might be already dequeued by other thread while I slept inside > security_post_recv_datagram().
Okay, well if that is the case I think you are going to have another problem in that you could end up throwing away skbs that haven't been through your security_post_recv_datagram() hook because you _always_ throw away the result of the second skb_peek(). Once again, if I'm wrong please correct me. > > Second, why not move the 'no_peek' code to just before 'no_packet'? > > Oh, I didn't notice I can insert here. Now I can also move the rest code > like > > | error = security_post_recv_datagram(sk, skb, flags); > | if (error) > | goto force_dequeue; > | > | } while (!wait_for_packet(sk, err, &timeo)); Where did the 'if (skb) return skb;' code go? Don't you need to do you LSM call before you return the skb? -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
