I found a bug in the kernel that i initially thought was in "ip x p".
If you specify an index when creating a new rule, the kernel overrides
So i can now update by index with attached patch.
On Thu, 2005-28-04 at 11:21 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I see. In that case you want to change your expression above
> so that the memcmp is never done if excl is off and the index
> is non-zero.
Hrm. Thinking... So you want to exclude the selector check if someone
updating ever specified the index? That may change things a little, no?
Give me a clever expression.
> Otherwise this will result in non-deterministic
> behaviour as the result will change depending on whether the
> first hit is an index match or a selector match.
I was trying to emulate the get/del. There if p->index is specified
it trumps the selector as a search key.
> Actually, would it be so bad to check the policy->index for the
> add case? It does have a well-defined meaning there.
That may not be totally unreasonable depending on what you mean by
"well defined meaning" ;->
If we want to ensure that theres a uniqueness of indices, then it makes
sense. i.e noone should be able to add either a selector or index which
match what already is in the SPD (per direction and probably ifindex).
Is that what you mean?
Description: Text document