On Fri, 2005-29-04 at 08:51 -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-29-04 at 09:11 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > You also still need to solve the problem that you may need to
> > delete two policies if one matches the index while the other matches
> > the selector (or selector plus priority if you do that).
> >
>
> Ok, this bit is tricky... that is unless we disallowed it from
> happening in the first place maybe
>
> i.e something along the lines of:
>
> delp1 = find by index
> delp2 = find by selector
> if delp1 && delp2 and delp1 != delp2
> return -EINVAL
>
> // so far good. check the add case
> if delp1 || delp2 and excl
> return -EEXIST
>
> do the insert here based on priority ..
>
> Thoughts?
Ok, here is the patch - I spent about 30 minutes testing - some of the
logs i remembered capturing attached (in these tests i was trying to
update a rule by selector or index and and see that it gets moved
correctly in terms of priority order).
A rule is unique by both selector(which it was already) and index(new).
cheers,
jamal
polid_p5
Description: Text document
ipsec-spd-priotst
Description: Text document
|