[Top] [All Lists]

Re: resend patch: xfrm policybyid

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: resend patch: xfrm policybyid
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:31:25 +1000
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1115342122.7660.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1115298877.7680.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <> <1115331436.8006.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> <> <1115342122.7660.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:15:22PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> Thats a moot point really Herbert. I can think of a few apps that can
> use this, but it shouldnt matter: The main point is correctness.

Ah, that's why we're talking past each other :) You're looking at
it as a bug where we aren't setting the index when it is provided
by the user.

The way I'm seeing it is that the index is simply a read-only value
that's only provided by the kernel to the user as an aid in locating

In this respect it's just like xfrm_policy->curlft, it can be read
by the user by it's only ever written by the kernel.  So whatever
value the user provides us when adding/updating a policy is simply

Another way to look at it is that it's a handle that we're returning
to the user so that they can talk about policies in an unambiguous way.

Does this make sense?

> You know what else you can do is get rid of the index totaly - that
> would be fine with me. What do you say to that?

That would break user API/ABI so no :)

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

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