On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote: > > This is a nice idea, however you keep the insertion asymmetric. The usage of > xfrm marks in non-conflicting cases will be made possible, but it stays > disturbing for a user as the initial example will still have the same > behavior: > * Inserting the marked one then the unmarked will succeed > * Inserting the unmarked then the marked one will fail > This gives to the user the feeling of an indeterministic behavior of the xfrm > module.
This was intended. Inserting the marked one then the unmarked is a working scenario. Some users might rely on it, so we can't change this as you proposed. On the other hand, inserting the unmarked one then the marked might result in a wrong policy lookup, so we can't allow this. The only possibility we have, is inserting with different priorites and that's what I'm proposing. I fear we have to live with that asymmetric behaviour if both policies have the same priority. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
