Re: Minor IPSec bug + solution

[Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 11:26:13AM +0200, Martin Bouzek wrote:
>
> > > function. For tunnels it returns 
> > > 
> > > tmpl->optional && !xfrm_state_addr_cmp(tmpl, x, family);
> 
> Well, I am not expierienced with the networking kernel code,
> nevertheless I still think the check is not correct. 

If you change the && to ||, then an ESP tunnel SA marked as required
can be matched by a simple IPIP SA with the same addresses.
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt