| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4172943B.8050904@xxxxxxxxx> <20041017212317.GA28615@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4172F1AB.4020305@xxxxxxxxx> <20041017231258.GA29294@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <417428CF.2050802@xxxxxxxxx> <20041018214326.GA6589@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <417521A2.4010500@xxxxxxxxx> <20041019212529.GA16127@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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 :-) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [XFRM] Allow transport SAs even when there is no policy, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6]: Fix policy update bug when increasing priority of last policy, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [XFRM] Allow transport SAs even when there is no policy, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [XFRM] Allow transport SAs even when there is no policy, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |