On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:51 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday 29 November 2007 8:45:46 am Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thursday 29 November 2007 5:34:59 am Herbert Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +0000, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not > > > > included in any of the SPD related audit messages. This can cause a > > > > problem when the audit log is examined as the netmask/prefix-length is > > > > vital in determining what network traffic is affected by a particular > > > > SPD entry. This patch fixes this problem by adding two additional > > > > fields, "src_prefixlen" and "dst_prefixlen", to the SPD audit messages > > > > to indicate the source and destination netmasks. These new fields are > > > > only included in the audit message when the netmask/prefix-length is > > > > less than the address length, i.e. the SPD entry applies to a network > > > > address and not a host address. > > > > > > Any reason why we don't just always include them? > > > > The audit folks seem to be very sensitive to the size/length of the audit > > messages, they prefer they be as small as possible. I thought that one way > > to save space would be to only print the prefix length information when the > > address referred to a network and not a single host. > > > > Would you prefer it if the prefix length information was always included in > > the audit message? Joy? Audit folks? > > Steve and/or Joy, could we get a verdict on this issue? The lack of a > netmask > in the SPD audit messages is pretty serious so I'd like to see this fixed as > soon as possible. > I think Steve may be able to answer this much better than I can in regards to audit. In my opinion having the netmask is good.
regards, Joy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
