James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Paul Moore wrote:
>>James Morris wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
+void selinux_netlbl_sk_security_init(struct sk_security_struct *ssec,
+int family)
+{
+if (family == PF_IN
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Paul Moore wrote:
> James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>+void selinux_netlbl_sk_security_init(struct sk_security_struct *ssec,
> >>+int family)
> >>+{
> >>+if (family == PF_INET)
> >
> > No tab.
>
James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>+void selinux_netlbl_sk_security_init(struct sk_security_struct *ssec,
>>+ int family)
>>+{
>>+if (family == PF_INET)
>
> No tab.
I see you already ack'd this patch, should I resubmit w
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +void selinux_netlbl_sk_security_init(struct sk_security_struct *ssec,
> + int family)
> +{
> +if (family == PF_INET)
No tab.
> + ssec->nlbl_state = NLBL_REQUIRE;
> + else
> + sse
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fix a problem where the NetLabel specific fields of the sk_security_struct
> structure were not being initialized early enough in some cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Regardless of the mapped ipv6 socket issue, I think thes
Fix a problem where the NetLabel specific fields of the sk_security_struct
structure were not being initialized early enough in some cases.
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
security/selinux/hooks.c|6 +++
security/selinux/include/selinux_netlabel.h | 18
