Hi Steffen, Do you plan to resubmit a patch to the mailing list or shall we take care of that?
Thank you, Romain On Feb 8, 2013, at 15:16 , Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thie...@telecom-bretagne.eu> wrote: > 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 -- Romain KUNTZ IP flavors | http://www.ipflavors.com +33 (0)6 61 29 50 52 r.ku...@ipflavors.com -- 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/
