From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] Replace reverse_route() with a call to ip_route_m e_harder() Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:23:08 +0200 Message-ID: <451E99EC.1050001@trash.net> References: <36282A1733C57546BE392885C0618592015CF34D@chaos.tcs.tcs-sec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ken Brownfield , Roberto Nibali , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, Farid Sarwari , David Black , Julian Anastasov , Horms , Joseph Mack NA3T , David Miller Return-path: To: Venkat Yekkirala In-Reply-To: <36282A1733C57546BE392885C0618592015CF34D@chaos.tcs.tcs-sec.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Venkat Yekkirala wrote: >>Venkat, is it correct to place a security_skb_classify_flow >>call in ip_route_me_harder (which also handles currently >>unlabeled protocols)? > > > This isn't necessary since the xfrm_decode_session invocation > from within ip_route_me_harder does take care of classifying > the flow. Thanks, I missed the call in xfrm_decode_session because I only looked in xfrm4_policy.c. Simon, I fixed up the patch slightly and applied it, thanks.