From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [7/7] [IPSEC] Add XFRMA_SA/XFRMA_POLICY for delete notification Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 08:46:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1115470004.19561.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050409105452.GA7171@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507071434.GA5716@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507071824.GA5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507071930.GC5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507072058.GD5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507072139.GE5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507072216.GF5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507072251.GG5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050507072349.GH5753@gondor.apana.org.au> <1115467457.19561.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050507122504.GA21693@gondor.apana.org.au> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , Masahide NAKAMURA , Patrick McHardy , netdev Return-path: To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20050507122504.GA21693@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2005-07-05 at 22:25 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 08:04:16AM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > > This is incosistent in two ways: > > 1) Typical netlink behavior is to return the object being deleted. > > Every other netlink user behaves that way - the only exception is sone > > filters in tc and this is because they cant retrieve that detail > > (something that needs resolution at some point). There is nothing that > > xfrm_usersa_id provides that can be found in xfrm_usersa_info. > > Same for the policy. > > This analogy is flawed since unlike other rtnetlink delete operations > the xfrm delete operations do not carry the same payload type as their > add/update cousins. > No, this is not true. Study the tc code. It is nice to be able to return exactly the same detail - user space can then infer what exactly happened. It is nicer to be able to return more detail because user space doesnt have to infer anything. > > 2) You cant have one behavior when something is deleted by pfkey and a > > different one when it is deleted by netlink. > > As far as I can see the behaviour is identical. > If this is true, then #1 is forgivable. This was my main concern. You describe the patch this way --- This patch changes the format of the XFRM_MSG_DELSA and XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY notification so that the main message sent is of the same format as that received by the kernel if the original message was via netlink. ---- That it only happens when you delete via netlink. Is this not so? cheers, jamal