Hello, Le 7 févr. 2013 à 13:54, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> a écrit :
> 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. > Ok, actually i understand the concern of backward compatibility you expose. It is true that users might be disturbed if we change such a behavior they would rely on. Anyway, i'm ok with your patch. Best regards Emmanuel Thierry-- 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/
