2016-10-24, 15:32:40 +0200, Tobias Brunner wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> @@ -440,12 +448,12 @@ static void macsec_fill_sectag(struct
> >> macsec_eth_header *h,
> >> const struct macsec_secy *secy, u32 pn)
> >> {
> >>const struct macsec_tx_sc *tx_sc = &secy->tx_sc;
> >> + b
> [snip]
>> @@ -440,12 +448,12 @@ static void macsec_fill_sectag(struct
>> macsec_eth_header *h,
>> const struct macsec_secy *secy, u32 pn)
>> {
>> const struct macsec_tx_sc *tx_sc = &secy->tx_sc;
>> +bool sci_present = send_sci(secy);
>
> You're already comp
2016-10-21, 13:11:37 +0200, Tobias Brunner wrote:
> Even if sending SCIs is explicitly disabled, the code that creates the
> Security Tag might still decide to add it (e.g. if multiple RX SCs are
> defined on the MACsec interface).
> But because the header length so far only depended on the configu
Even if sending SCIs is explicitly disabled, the code that creates the
Security Tag might still decide to add it (e.g. if multiple RX SCs are
defined on the MACsec interface).
But because the header length so far only depended on the configuration
option the SCI might not actually have ended up in
