netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [XFRM] Allow transport SAs even when there is no policy

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [XFRM] Allow transport SAs even when there is no policy
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:04:17 -0700
Cc: kaber@xxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ipsec-tools-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041019212529.GA16127@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <4172943B.8050904@trash.net> <20041017212317.GA28615@gondor.apana.org.au> <4172F1AB.4020305@trash.net> <20041017231258.GA29294@gondor.apana.org.au> <417428CF.2050802@trash.net> <20041018214326.GA6589@gondor.apana.org.au> <417521A2.4010500@trash.net> <20041019212529.GA16127@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:25:29 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:16:02PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > Looks good. So you agree we should also apply my patch to
> > xfrm_policy_lookup (attached again with less confusing subject) ? It makes
> > packets with a secpath fall through to __xfrm_policy_check when the policy
> > list is empty, so the default policy is always the same. This will break
> > setups with keying daemons that don't add forward policies for tunnel mode
> > SAs.
> 
> Agreed.  Thanks.

Also applied.  Thanks Patrick and Herbert.

BTW, Herbert, you can use a signed-off-by: line as an "ACK"
if you want :-)

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