Re: New skb extension for use by LSMs (skb "security blob")?

On 8/22/2019 2:18 PM, David Miller wrote:

From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:35:01 -0700

quoted

If the secmark where replaced by a security blob, the u32 secmark field
in an sk_buff would be replaced by a void * security field.

You can already use the secmark to hash to some kind of pointer or other
object.

Would you really want that used in the most common configuration?
Sure, you *can* do that, but it would be insane to do so.