Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Netfilter\+IPsec\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Netfilter\+IPsec\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. errupt problem: e1000 & Super-Micro X6DVA motherboard (score: 1): Author: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:05:50 +0100; Patrick McHardy wrote: It would call netif_rx(). The packet should pass all hooks as usual, so everything works as expected. It is cleaner than my current approach, but has the same problems wrt. sta; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01368.html (29,559 bytes)
2. Psec (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:43:40 -0800; This is actually much cleaner than I had ever anticipated. I like it. I suppose the input side will be quite a bit more involved?; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01371.html (12,269 bytes)
3. ss-2.6 7/10] hostap: Rate limiting for debug messages (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:53:49 +1100; I completely agree. The output patch is an elegant piece of work. Maybe it won't be that bad when we actually see it :) BTW Patrick, what about the other bits in your original patch set? In particula; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01393.html (12,412 bytes)
4. e: [PATCH: 2.6.12-rc1] mii: Add test for GigE support (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:10:36 +0100; Herbert Xu wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:43:40PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: This patch (not entirely reviewed myself yet) contains the parts necessary for hooking output IPsec packets for netf; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01403.html (14,352 bytes)
5. Netfilter+IPsec (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:05:50 +0100; Patrick McHardy wrote: It would call netif_rx(). The packet should pass all hooks as usual, so everything works as expected. It is cleaner than my current approach, but has the same problems wrt. sta; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03291.html (30,054 bytes)
6. Re: Netfilter+IPsec (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:43:40 -0800; This is actually much cleaner than I had ever anticipated. I like it. I suppose the input side will be quite a bit more involved?; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03294.html (12,800 bytes)
7. Re: Netfilter+IPsec (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:53:49 +1100; I completely agree. The output patch is an elegant piece of work. Maybe it won't be that bad when we actually see it :) BTW Patrick, what about the other bits in your original patch set? In particula; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03316.html (12,795 bytes)
8. Re: Netfilter+IPsec (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:10:36 +0100; This patch (not entirely reviewed myself yet) contains the parts necessary for hooking output IPsec packets for netfilter. This is actually much cleaner than I had ever anticipated. I like it. I com; /archives/netdev/2005-03/msg03326.html (14,821 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]