From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
To: Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thierry@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@ipflavors.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:30:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <511268F0.5070808@mojatatu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D4563759-CEC5-4F33-BF0A-9FA10716F8DF@telecom-bretagne.eu>
On 13-02-06 08:53 AM, Emmanuel Thierry wrote:
> Actually, we didn't think about this problem since we work with priorities, putting the default policy (without a mark) at a minor priority than the marked one.
I think priorities are the way to go in cases of ambiguity.
> Your remark makes clearer the ideas behind the design of XFRM, but this leads to an interesting concern. If on policy insertion, the policy were inserted depending on the accuracy of the mark (the more the mask is specific, the more the mark must be put at the beginning of the list), how would we decide which is the more specific between these ones ?
>
> ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir out mark 0x00000001 mask 0x00000005
>
> ip -6 xfrm policy add src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir out mark 0x00000001 mask 0x00000003
They look different to me, no? i.e i dont see a conflict - one has
mark=5 and the other
has mark=3.
cheers,
jamal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-06 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-02 17:27 [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask Romain KUNTZ
2013-02-05 8:12 ` Steffen Klassert
2013-02-06 13:14 ` jamal
2013-02-06 13:53 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-06 14:30 ` Jamal Hadi Salim [this message]
2013-02-06 14:39 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-06 15:50 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2013-02-07 10:49 ` Steffen Klassert
2013-02-07 11:08 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-07 11:16 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-07 12:54 ` Steffen Klassert
2013-02-08 14:16 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-11 12:57 ` Romain KUNTZ
2013-02-11 13:04 ` Steffen Klassert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=511268F0.5070808@mojatatu.com \
--to=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=emmanuel.thierry@telecom-bretagne.eu \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=r.kuntz@ipflavors.com \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox