On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:27:26 -0700
Nathan Harold wrote:
> < re-sent with apologies due to incorrect formatting last
> time... :-( >
>
> Hi Eyal,
>
> > If x1 points to a state previously found using
> > __xfrm_state_locate(x), won't __xfrm_state_bump_genids(x1) be
> > equivalent to x1->genid++ i
< re-sent with apologies due to incorrect formatting last time... :-( >
Hi Eyal,
> If x1 points to a state previously found using __xfrm_state_locate(x),
> won't __xfrm_state_bump_genids(x1) be equivalent to x1->genid++ in
> this case?
In the vanilla case this is true. IE, if there are no strang
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:07:10 -0700
Nathan Harold wrote:
> Allow UPDSA to change "set mark" to permit
> policy separation of packet routing decisions from
> SA keying in systems that use mark-based routing.
>
> The set mark, used as a routing and firewall mark
> for outbound packets,
Allow UPDSA to change "set mark" to permit
policy separation of packet routing decisions from
SA keying in systems that use mark-based routing.
The set mark, used as a routing and firewall mark
for outbound packets, is made update-able which
allows routing decisions to be handled independently
of
