Re: [PATCH 10/13] NetLabel: use cipso_v4_doi_search() for local CIPSOv4 functions

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Viro <redacted>
Date: Friday, Nov 24, 2006 2:07 am
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] NetLabel: use cipso_v4_doi_search() for local CIPSOv4 functions

On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:24:34PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:

On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:38 -0500, paul.moore@hp.com wrote:

quoted

Index: net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c
===================================================================

--- net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work.orig/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c
+++ net-2.6.20_netlabel-base-work/net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c

@@ -1136,7 +1136,7 @@ int cipso_v4_validate(unsigned char **op
 	}
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	doi_def = cipso_v4_doi_getdef(ntohl(*((__be32 *)&opt[2])));
+	doi_def = cipso_v4_doi_search(ntohl(*((u32 *)&opt[2])));
 	if (doi_def == NULL) {
 		err_offset = 2;
 		goto validate_return_locked;

This appears to reverse the previous endian work by Al Viro, was this
intended?

Mismerge, most likely.  Fixed in net-2.6.20 since then (
commit 835ec2525544c744333bf0da00049f323eb75c58
Author: Al Viro [off-list ref]
Date:   Mon Nov 20 18:08:37 2006 -0800

   [CIPSO]: Missing annotation in cipso_ipv4 update.
) 

Note that there are two changes in that line - u32 -> __be32 and
..._getdef -> ..._search.  They do not really conflict, but any merge tool would throw a conflict at that point and apparently it got
resolved the dumb way...

Yep, Al is right, I just made a dumb mistake when merging my code with the latest net-2.6.20 tree.  I thought I caught everything but it looks like I missed one.  Sorry.

. paul moore
. linux security @ hp