(sorry, this got caught by my mail provider's spam filter so I only saw it today)
2026-09-21, 22:27:11 +0200, root wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 03:28:10PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > 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? > > I think so. I felt byaddr is not used and aslo since there is no unique spi > if touch it dragons may wake up:) most used cases with SPI. 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. > > yes that is a risk. I tried find use cases and got nowhere. > And concluded it was an oversight. Also note the > cover letter, "policy" had similar change a while ago. > No one complained yet? Yeah, I agree. Just maybe worth mentioning briefly in the commit message, and adding a reference the policy patch. -- Sabrina
