Thomas Graf wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-07-17 11:52 > >>+ * NetLabel makes use of the Generic NETLINK mechanism as a transport layer >>to >>+ * send messages between kernel and user space. The general format of a >>+ * NetLabel message is shown below: >>+ * >>+ * +-----------------+-------------------+--------- --- -- - >>+ * | struct nlmsghdr | struct genlmsghdr | payload >>+ * +-----------------+-------------------+--------- --- -- - >>+ * >>+ * The 'nlmsghdr' and 'genlmsghdr' structs should be dealt with like normal. >>+ * The payload is dependent on the subsystem specified in the >>+ * 'nlmsghdr->nlmsg_type' and should be defined below, supporting functions >>+ * should be defined in the corresponding net/netlabel/netlabel_<subsys>.h|c >>+ * file. All of the fields in the NetLabel payload should be aligned using >>+ * the alignment functions provided. >>+ * >>+ */ >>+ >>+/* >>+ * NetLabel NETLINK protocol >>+ */ >>+ > > Is there a reason for not using any of the existing netlink and > genetlink interfaces in any of your patches? It's all duplicated > code.
I'm a little confused by your comment, could you be a bit more specific? Are you basing your comment strictly on the text above? If so, the problem may be my poor excuse for documentation rather then my poor excuse for implementation :) I am using the generic netlink interface, in what I believe to be a "correct" fashion - please correct me if I'm wrong. -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
