| To: | David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 1/22] xfrm: Add direction information to xfrm_state |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:17:26 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1106373022.3691.36.camel@ori.thedillows.org> |
| References: | <20041230035000.01@ori.thedillows.org> <20041230035000.10@ori.thedillows.org> <20050121143857.69282605.davem@davemloft.net> <1106373022.3691.36.camel@ori.thedillows.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:50:22 -0500 David Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hmm, I can see having netdev->xfrm_bundle_add() assume a outbound state, > since it's only called for Tx. > > Rx offloading could be interesting, but it looks like I could hook into > net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:__xfrm_policy_check(), and add the xfrm_states > seen there to a work queue for offloading. netdev->xfrm_state_add() > would then only see inbound states. > > Sound sane? You really can't get at the policies at these places somehow? Even by passing down the xfrm_policy pointer into these call chains? If you could get at the xfrm_policy, then you could get the direction. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 4/22] xfrm: Try to offload inbound xfrm_states, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [IPSEC] Stop using dst->xfrm, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 1/22] xfrm: Add direction information to xfrm_state, David Dillow |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 1/22] xfrm: Add direction information to xfrm_state, David Dillow |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |