[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:18:48 +1000
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1111867875.1089.915.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <1111864971.1092.904.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1111867875.1089.915.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:11:15PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 14:47, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Since we're adding new multicast groups, what about adding one for
> > the passive event monitor? That way we can return ESRCH in km_query
> > if there are no registered ACQUIRE listeners but still send messages
> > to the monitor.
> Not sure how to do it for both PF_KEY and netlink. It does sound like a
> reasonable thing to do. Thoughts?

For non-standard extensions like this I wouldn't worry about PF_KEY.
After all, if you're going to make sense of all the messages from
the kernel you'll have to use netlink anyway.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>