2026-09-08, 08:48:45 +0200, Antony Antony wrote:
> Add __xfrm_state_lookup_exact(); wire it into DELSA/GETSA
On the "other proto" branch of xfrm_user_state_lookup(), we call
xfrm_state_lookup_byaddr() -> __xfrm_state_lookup_byaddr(), which
still does a "loose" mark match:
if ((mark & x->mark.m) != x->mark.v)
continue;
Is that ok?
That's the only thing I've noticed in the series.
I guess someone could claim that this patch changes behavior, but if a
user somewhere notices it, I think that would mean they were relying
on insertion order to delete/etc the right SA.
--
Sabrina
