Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\,\s+PATCH\s+4\/5\]\:\s+netfilter\+ipsec\s+\-\s+policy\s+lookup\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFC\,\s+PATCH\s+4\/5\]\:\s+netfilter\+ipsec\s+\-\s+policy\s+lookup\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:32:23 +0100; This patch adds policy lookups to ip_route_me_harder and makes NAT reroute for any change that affects route/policy lookups. any change in route/policy key any change in route/policy key any change i; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00354.html (17,421 bytes)
2. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: vid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:16:45 -0800; Why are you deleting that "fl.proto = iph->protocol;" line in net/core/netfilter.c? Is something else going to set it properly?; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00375.html (10,770 bytes)
3. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:51:30 +1100; Better call __ip_route_output_key rather than not setting proto because you'll need proto in xfrm_lookup. If we can reinject transport packets then we can move this back into the if clause. -- Debian; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00388.html (12,400 bytes)
4. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: adi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:30:29 +0100; David S. Miller wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:32:23 +0100 Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: This patch adds policy lookups to ip_route_me_harder and makes NAT reroute for any change that affec; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00391.html (11,727 bytes)
5. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: aber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:34:58 +0100; fl.nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark = (*pskb)->nfmark; - fl.proto = iph->protocol; Better call __ip_route_output_key rather than not setting proto because you'll need proto in xfrm_lookup. if (ip_route_output_key(&; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00395.html (12,972 bytes)
6. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:05:25 +1100; Right, you're calling decode_session below which is much better. Actually it was me who was confused. ip_route_me_harder can be called on both incoming/outgoing packets. That's what the if clause is; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00398.html (13,758 bytes)
7. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: llwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:01:55 +0100; Herbert Xu wrote: Actually it was me who was confused. ip_route_me_harder can be called on both incoming/outgoing packets. That's what the if clause is trying to determine. You should only call xfrm_; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00407.html (12,417 bytes)
8. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:35:12 +1100; You're right. Sorry for the confusion. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~her; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00413.html (12,289 bytes)
9. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:16:04 +1100; BTW, you can xfrm4_route_forward here. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~her; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00418.html (11,788 bytes)
10. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: bert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:34:11 +0100; Herbert Xu wrote: On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 05:32:23PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: @@ -661,6 +661,20 @@ if ((*pskb)->dst->error) return -1; + +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM + if (!(IPCB(*pskb)->flags & IPSKB_XF; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00420.html (11,744 bytes)
11. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:03:22 +1100; No that would be wrong as socket policies won't be applied correctly. Forget about that idea :) -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxx; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00422.html (11,269 bytes)
12. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: u@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:29:45 +0100; Herbert Xu wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:34:11AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: Is it correct that __xfrm_route_forward will use NULL for the sock parameter to xfrm_lookup even if the packet is fr; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00423.html (11,279 bytes)
13. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:15:14 +1100; Think their might be a problem with this patch. Potientially a packet could traverse the pre, forward and the post routing, at which point it can be SNAT'ed or MASQ'ed and then re injected into rout; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00461.html (11,410 bytes)
14. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:39:50 +0100; Think their might be a problem with this patch. Potientially a packet could traverse the pre, forward and the post routing, at which point it can be SNAT'ed or MASQ'ed and then re injected into route; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00462.html (11,575 bytes)
15. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: dy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:33:26 +1100; Sorry might not have made myself clear, after an SNAT with your patch the packet is re injected into route_me_harder, thus the packet is able to be rerouted (sent out another interface for example) W; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg00464.html (12,578 bytes)
16. [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:32:23 +0100; This patch adds policy lookups to ip_route_me_harder and makes NAT reroute for any change that affects route/policy lookups. any change in route/policy key any change in route/policy key any change i; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg01018.html (17,547 bytes)
17. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:16:45 -0800; Why are you deleting that "fl.proto = iph->protocol;" line in net/core/netfilter.c? Is something else going to set it properly?; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg01039.html (10,909 bytes)
18. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:51:30 +1100; Better call __ip_route_output_key rather than not setting proto because you'll need proto in xfrm_lookup. If we can reinject transport packets then we can move this back into the if clause. -- Debian; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg01052.html (12,584 bytes)
19. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:30:29 +0100; This patch adds policy lookups to ip_route_me_harder and makes NAT reroute for any change that affects route/policy lookups. Why are you deleting that "fl.proto = iph->protocol;" line in net/core/ne; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg01055.html (11,854 bytes)
20. Re: [RFC, PATCH 4/5]: netfilter+ipsec - policy lookup (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:34:58 +0100; @@ -635,7 +636,6 @@ fl.nl_u.ip4_u.fwmark = (*pskb)->nfmark; - fl.proto = iph->protocol; Better call __ip_route_output_key rather than not setting proto because you'll need proto in xfrm_lookup. if (; /archives/netdev/2004-03/msg01059.html (13,040 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]