| To: | latten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: IPsecv6 integrity failures not dropped |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200304182017.h3IKH4ng019821@faith.austin.ibm.com> |
| References: | <200304182017.h3IKH4ng019821@faith.austin.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: latten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:17:04 -0500
I modified ah6_input() and esp6_input() to return zero instead of -EINVAL
in the fix below. I tested it and it works.
Please let me know if this is ok.
I think it would be better if ipv6's upper-layer interface worked
like ipv4's. ie. a < 0 return value means:
next_proto =- ret;
goto resubmit;
The less that is different between ipv4/ipv6 the better.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | IPsecv6 integrity failures not dropped, latten |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPsecv6 integrity failures not dropped, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | IPsecv6 integrity failures not dropped, latten |
| Next by Thread: | Re: IPsecv6 integrity failures not dropped, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |