[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [7/7] [IPSEC] Add XFRMA_SA/XFRMA_POLICY for delete notification

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [7/7] [IPSEC] Add XFRMA_SA/XFRMA_POLICY for delete notification
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 08:46:44 -0400
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050507122504.GA21693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: unknown
References: <20050409105452.GA7171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507071434.GA5716@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507071824.GA5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507071930.GC5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507072058.GD5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507072139.GE5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507072216.GF5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507072251.GG5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507072349.GH5753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1115467457.19561.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050507122504.GA21693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 2005-07-05 at 22:25 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 08:04:16AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> > 
> > This is incosistent in two ways:
> > 1) Typical netlink behavior is to return the object being deleted.
> > Every other netlink user behaves that way - the only exception is sone
> > filters in tc and this is because they cant retrieve that detail
> > (something that needs resolution at some point). There is nothing that
> > xfrm_usersa_id provides that can be found in xfrm_usersa_info.
> > Same for the policy.
> This analogy is flawed since unlike other rtnetlink delete operations
> the xfrm delete operations do not carry the same payload type as their
> add/update cousins.

No, this is not true. Study the tc code.
It is nice to be able to return exactly the same detail - user space can
then infer what exactly happened. It is nicer to be able to return more
detail because user space doesnt have to infer anything.

> > 2) You cant have one behavior when something is deleted by pfkey and a
> > different one when it is deleted by netlink.
> As far as I can see the behaviour is identical.

If this is true, then #1 is forgivable.  This was my main concern.

You describe the patch this way

This patch changes the format of the XFRM_MSG_DELSA and
XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY notification so that the main message
sent is of the same format as that received by the kernel
if the original message was via netlink.

That it only happens when you delete via netlink. Is this not so?


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