Re: RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread David Miller
From: Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:20:01 +0300 > > Here's the patch again properly signed off. > > I think it is correct. Patch applied, thanks everyone. I'll push this one to -stable too. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in th

Re: RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread Alexey Kuznetsov
Hello! > Here's the patch again properly signed off. I think it is correct. Alexey - 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

Re: RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread Patrick McHardy
Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Hello! > > >>Alexey, do you remember what the original intent of this was? > > > disable_policy was supposed to skip policy checks on input. > It makes sense only on input device. > > disable_xfrm was supposed to skip transformations on output. > It makes sense only o

Re: RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread Alexey Kuznetsov
Hello! > Alexey, do you remember what the original intent of this was? disable_policy was supposed to skip policy checks on input. It makes sense only on input device. disable_xfrm was supposed to skip transformations on output. It makes sense only on output device. If it does not work, it was

Re: RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > disable_xfrm - BOOLEAN > > Disable IPSEC encryption on this interface, whatever the policy > > Opinions? Looks good to me, wonder what the original rationale was, though. -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list

Re: RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread Patrick McHardy
James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>disable_xfrm - BOOLEAN >> >>Disable IPSEC encryption on this interface, whatever the policy >> >>Opinions? > > > Looks good to me, wonder what the original rationale was, though. Me too. It was introduced by this pa

RFC: consistent disable_xfrm behaviour

2006-12-04 Thread Patrick McHardy
Currently the behaviour of disable_xfrm is inconsistent between locally generated and forwarded packets. For locally generated packets disable_xfrm disables the policy lookup if it is set on the output device, for forwarded traffic however it looks at the input device. This makes it impossible to d