[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB4ABC8.5000506@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:42:00 +0800
From: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
lw@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: fix incorrect ipsec transport mode fragment
于 2012年05月15日 06:41, David Miller 写道:
> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:05:28 +0200
>
>> There might be other opinions, but I don't like to see this IPsec mode
>> dependent stuff hacked into the generic ipv6 output path.
>
> Completely agreed.
Hi David
how do you think about adding function pointer to struct xfrm_mode?
when prefering xfrm_mode,there must be some ipsec codes in the generic ipv6 output
path,just like below.it looks ugly.
int ip6_append_data(struct sock *sk, int getfrag(void *from, char *to,
int offset, int len, int odd, struct sk_buff *skb),
void *from, int length, int transhdrlen,
int hlimit, int tclass, struct ipv6_txoptions *opt, struct flowi6 *fl6,
struct rt6_info *rt, unsigned int flags, int dontfrag)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM
struct xfrm_state *x = rt->dst.xfrm;
if (x && x->outer_mode && x->outer_mode->append_data) {
x->outer_mode->append_data(...);
} else
#endif
__ip6_append_data(...);
}
I want to use one bit of rt6_info->rt6i_flags to identify the actions we should
do in ip6_append_data. BUT it seems not what the rt6i_flags should do.this may
make rt6i_flags in chaos.
What's your comment?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists