netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [5/*] [IPSEC] Use XFRM_MSG_* instead of XFRM_SAP_*
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12 Apr 2005 09:37:03 -0400
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <425B8401.1010609@linux-ipv6.org>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <1112702604.1089.119.camel@jzny.localdomain> <20050409105452.GA7171@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050409111244.GB7171@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050409111551.GA7378@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050410074849.GA13259@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050410090250.GA26022@gondor.apana.org.au> <1113142510.1091.294.camel@jzny.localdomain> <425A0F00.8070509@linux-ipv6.org> <1113218805.1089.357.camel@jzny.localdomain> <425B8401.1010609@linux-ipv6.org>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 04:17, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote:

> short report:
> My testing is not completed but, I've tested below and it is fine:
>  add/del/flush SP and their notifications through netlink (using modified 
> iproute2/ip).
> 
>  new "xfrm_userpolicy_delete" works fine on this case;
>  used byid=1 when deleting SP with specifying SP index.
> 
> I'll test the rest case (17 hours later):
> - using pfkey
> - using both sockets
> 

I did basic testing with pfkey generated events (policy/state) showing
up in both. The vice-versa also looks good.
Herbert, try to push forward to Dave.

cheers,
jamal


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