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
policies.
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
ignored.
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 :)
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
|