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 'const' > > > 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 <f...@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 <jamor...@linux.microsoft.com>
Thank you! Into net-next it goes..
