From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756597Ab3BFPuj (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:50:39 -0500 Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:46356 "EHLO mail-ie0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754896Ab3BFPuh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:50:37 -0500 Message-ID: <51127BCA.7070900@mojatatu.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:50:34 -0500 From: Jamal Hadi Salim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Emmanuel Thierry CC: Steffen Klassert , Romain KUNTZ , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask. References: <9E57ADA1-5770-47A8-8EBF-7FC262EEF1C7@ipflavors.com> <20130205081232.GF23291@secunet.com> <51125744.3030905@gmail.com> <511268F0.5070808@mojatatu.com> <5D4F2414-B869-46AA-B684-01F9EA88AD03@telecom-bretagne.eu> In-Reply-To: <5D4F2414-B869-46AA-B684-01F9EA88AD03@telecom-bretagne.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13-02-06 09:39 AM, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: > > I think you misread the example ! I did ;-> > Marks are both 1, masks are different. > > This case is more complex than a policy > with no mark (so mark=0 and mask=0) versus > a policy with an exact mark (so mark=1 and mask=0xffffffff), > and i wanted to know if the algorithm would take these kind of cases into account. > Aha. I think this is pushing the envelope a little - are there good use cases for this? certainly you could insert with most exact mask first. No such check is made at the moment. cheers, jamal