From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thierry@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Cc: jamal <j.hadi123@gmail.com>, Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@ipflavors.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:54:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130207125437.GC17794@secunet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2BEAF521-7218-415B-98ED-EC0812903479@telecom-bretagne.eu>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote:
>
> This is a nice idea, however you keep the insertion asymmetric. The usage of xfrm marks in non-conflicting cases will be made possible, but it stays disturbing for a user as the initial example will still have the same behavior:
> * Inserting the marked one then the unmarked will succeed
> * Inserting the unmarked then the marked one will fail
> This gives to the user the feeling of an indeterministic behavior of the xfrm module.
This was intended. Inserting the marked one then the unmarked
is a working scenario. Some users might rely on it, so we can't
change this as you proposed.
On the other hand, inserting the unmarked one then the marked
might result in a wrong policy lookup, so we can't allow this.
The only possibility we have, is inserting with different
priorites and that's what I'm proposing.
I fear we have to live with that asymmetric behaviour if
both policies have the same priority.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-07 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-02 17:27 [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask Romain KUNTZ
2013-02-05 8:12 ` Steffen Klassert
2013-02-06 13:14 ` jamal
2013-02-06 13:53 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-06 14:30 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2013-02-06 14:39 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-06 15:50 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2013-02-07 10:49 ` Steffen Klassert
2013-02-07 11:08 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-07 11:16 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-07 12:54 ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2013-02-08 14:16 ` Emmanuel Thierry
2013-02-11 12:57 ` Romain KUNTZ
2013-02-11 13:04 ` Steffen Klassert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130207125437.GC17794@secunet.com \
--to=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=emmanuel.thierry@telecom-bretagne.eu \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=j.hadi123@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=r.kuntz@ipflavors.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).