On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 18:14 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>
> >> The question is where is this host really?
> >>
> >> If it is far far away and connected only via IPsec tunnel with
> >> destionation
> >> of tunnel different of host address
> >>
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 16:18 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> If you try to return an uninitialized value the compiler will warn you,
> you'll then look at the code and realise you missed a case, you might
> save yourself a bug.
You *should* look at the code :)
So should we be reporting these
e not seen any
other bad effects from this though, so hopefully this is enough.
(Thanks to Herbert Xu for pointing out that NLMSG_SPACE is the correct
macro to use here.)
Tested against 2.6.17.6 kernel on i386, and 2.6.16.1 kernel on cris.
Signed-off-by: Andy Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 17:25 +0200, Marco Berizzi wrote:
> Andy Gay wrote:
>
> >As Herbert said, the right= address doesn't matter. Search for 10.180.
>
> If it doesn't matter, who told to linux to send packets for
> 10.180.0.0/16 to 172.16.1.253?
You're
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 16:36 +0200, Marco Berizzi wrote:
> Andy Gay wrote:
>
> >It's a function of the IPsec SADB.
(That should have beed SPDB, of course... :)
> The passthrough conn added a more
> >specific policy that will match before the tunnel policy.
> >You
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 16:06 +0200, Marco Berizzi wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> >Marco Berizzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 172.16.0.0/23 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.1.1
> > > 10.180.0.0/16 via 172.16.1.253 dev eth2
> > > 10.0.0.0/8 via pub_ip dev eth0
> > > 127.0.0.0/
Since 2.6.16 it's been necessary to add an ACCEPT rule for IPIP
(protocol 4) in the INPUT chain, otherwise IPsec tunnel mode packets get
dropped (if your INPUT policy is DROP).
I was wondering if that's the intended behavior. I did google around for
this, I found a few reports of the same thing bu
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 01:01 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > My point wasn't really about performance here, more that systems needing
> > this level of performance (server farm is just an example) will probably
> > be on an 'inside' network with firewalling being done elsewhere (at the
> > access layer
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 22:47 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So perhaps there's a good argument to make that a Linux system with the
> > right hardware could be considered a core device. Likely any place you
> > have such a system it would be dedicated to just moving data as well as
> > possible, and l
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 16:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 01 July 2006 01:01, Tom Tucker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 14:16 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > The TOE folks have tried to submit their hooks and drivers
> > > on several occaisions, and we've rejected it every time.
>
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 11:59 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andy Gay writes:
>
> > How does the serial driver know it has to call ppp_asynctty_wakeup()?
>
> The serial driver is supposed to call the line discipline's wakeup
> function when it has room in
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 20:27 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > hm, a PPP fix. We seem to need some of those lately.
> >
> > Paul, does this look sane?
>
> /me pages in 7 year old code...
>
> > @@ -516,6 +516,8 @@ static void ppp_async_process(unsigned l
> > /* try t
12 matches
Mail list logo
