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 th
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 func
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
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_c
