From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: avoid to send/receive the exceeding hard lifetime data Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:39:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20121214113945.GH18940@secunet.com> References: <1355387152-9963-1-git-send-email-roy.qing.li@gmail.com> <20121213101422.GF18940@secunet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: RongQing Li Return-path: Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([195.81.216.161]:52769 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309Ab2LNLjs (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:39:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:58:03PM +0800, RongQing Li wrote: > > Yes, RFC does not say how to handle this packet. > > But when I do a IPsec compliance test with IxANVL, the test case 5.3/5.11, > which reports a error because it expects this packet should be dropped, but not. > > > I do not know if it is bug, or if it is valuable to fix it? > As long as the RFC does not state anything else, we ar ok in the synchronous code path. But we need a fix for the asynchronous code path.