On Friday 03 August 2007 01:01:14 David Miller wrote:
> Joakim, TEST YOUR PATCHES, and not just with your BEET test cases,
> before submitting them in the future. Having normal configurations of
> both PF_KEY and XFRM_USER ipsec totally break as a result of your
> changes is totally unacceptable a
From: Joy Latten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:58:38 -0500
> Although an ipsec SA was established, kernel couldn't seem to find it.
>
> I think since we are now using "x->sel.family" instead of "family"
> in the xfrm_selector_match() called in xfrm_state_find(), af_key
> needs t
Although an ipsec SA was established, kernel couldn't seem to find it.
I think since we are now using "x->sel.family" instead of "family"
in the xfrm_selector_match() called in xfrm_state_find(), af_key
needs to set this field too, just as xfrm_user.
In af_key.c, x->sel.family only gets set
