[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [5/*] [IPSEC] Use XFRM_MSG_* instead of XFRM_SAP_*

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [5/*] [IPSEC] Use XFRM_MSG_* instead of XFRM_SAP_*
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:28:48 +1000
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1113142510.1091.294.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <1112702604.1089.119.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <> <> <> <> <1113142510.1091.294.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:15:11AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> The main reason i did the XFRM_SAP_* is to be able to cover a case where
> a message was relevant to one KM but not the other. That may not
> exist now (actually it does with policy expiration that pfkey cant
> handle - but thats easy to take care of).
> Hopefully XFRM_MSG_xxx is the superset and will be sufficient.

Since xfrm_user is meant to be the native interface, this should never

> Do you have anymore patches? If not i can give these a quick test;
> Masahide has a better test setup and if he has time he should as well.

That's it for now.

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

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