[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51127BCA.7070900@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:50:34 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thierry@...ecom-bretagne.eu>
CC: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@...lavors.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.
On 13-02-06 09:39 AM, Emmanuel Thierry wrote:
>
> I think you misread the example !
I did ;->
> Marks are both 1, masks are different.
>
> This case is more complex than a policy
> with no mark (so mark=0 and mask=0) versus
> a policy with an exact mark (so mark=1 and mask=0xffffffff),
> and i wanted to know if the algorithm would take these kind of cases into account.
>
Aha. I think this is pushing the envelope a little - are there good use
cases for this?
certainly you could insert with most exact mask first. No such check is
made at the moment.
cheers,
jamal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists