From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [6/*] [IPSEC] Fix xfrm[46]_update_pmtu to update top dst Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:35:02 -0800 Message-ID: <20050306213502.1920a99a.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20050214221006.GA18415@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050214221200.GA18465@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050214221433.GB18465@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050214221607.GC18465@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050216103744.GA476@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050216110842.GA1024@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@redhat.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com To: Herbert Xu In-Reply-To: <20050216110842.GA1024@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:08:42 +1100 Herbert Xu wrote: > Let's also fix IPsec PMTU storage. When we get an MTU update for an > xfrm_dst, it should be done to the top dst, not the bottom dst. > > For example, when we get a need-to-frag message for host C behind > a our IPsec peer B, we should be updating the dst entry for C and > not B as we do now. > > I've removed the boundary checks since the same checks are done > in ipv[46]/route.c already. > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu Applied, thanks Herbert. Note that sometimes it is better to replace an "unnecessary as determined by me" boundary check with a BUG() instead of outright removal. That way you get to test your assertion :)