From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Masahide NAKAMURA Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3][XFRM]: Support packet processing error statistics. Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:06:07 +0900 Message-ID: <200710251806.07958.nakam@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20071017.213523.58458049.davem@davemloft.net> <200710241230.57571.nakam@linux-ipv6.org> <1193228326.4442.12.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Herbert Xu , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from [203.178.140.9] ([203.178.140.9]:52664 "EHLO mail.gomagoma.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755113AbXJYJGS (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:06:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1193228326.4442.12.camel@localhost> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Wednesday 24 October 2007 21:18, jamal wrote: > On Wed, 2007-24-10 at 12:30 +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote: > > > At IPsec point of view, actually "SPI mismatch" caused by user configuration > > cannot be identified easily since identify of SAD is consist of SPI, address and > > protocol(ESP/AH...) and linux SAD uses hash database. It is database identify > > mismatch. Then, SPI mismatch goes "NoStates" at my patch. > > OTOH Key mismatch goes "ProtoError" since esp[46]_input returns error. > > Would be useful to just document what you said above so that user doesnt > have to intepret it. OK, I write it to commit-log then. If anybody have another place where such information should be written, tell me. [snip] > > > In any case, it seems to me to be more accurate to not call them MIB > > > stats if they are not. This doesnt qualify using the macros, utilities > > > etc used for MIBs. > > > > BTW, I meant "doesnt disqualify them" above;-> OK ;-) Jamal, thanks for many comments. -- Masahide NAKAMURA