[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhePoickEM34/ojP@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:22:10 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
CC: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>, <antony.antony@...unet.com>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David
S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub
Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<devel@...ux-ipsec.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Eyal Birger
<eyal.birger@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v9] xfrm: Add Direction to the SA in or out
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:37:27AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 10/04/2024 à 10:17, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
> [snip]
> >> Why isn't it possible to restrict the use of an input SA to the input path and
> >> output SA to xmit path?
> >
> > Because nobody has written a patch for it yet :)
> >
> For me, it should be done in this patch/series ;-)
I tend to disagree here. Adding the direction as a lookup key
is IMO beyond the scope of this patch. That's complicated and
would defer this series by months. Given that the upcomming IPTFS
implementation has a lot of direction specific config options,
it makes sense to take that this patch now. Otherwise we have the
direction specific options in input and output states forever.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists