On Saturday 01 December 2007 7:28:34 am Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
Steve and/or Joy, could we get a verdict on this issue? The lack of a
netmask in the SPD audit messages is pretty serious so I'd like to see
this fixed as soon as possible.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
Steve and/or Joy, could we get a verdict on this issue? The lack of a
netmask
in the SPD audit messages is pretty serious so I'd like to see this fixed as
soon as possible.
I'll take the resounding silence as an indication of
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:51 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 8:45:46 am Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 5:34:59 am Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry
On Thursday 29 November 2007 8:45:46 am Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday 29 November 2007 5:34:59 am Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not
included in any of the SPD related audit
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not included in
any of the SPD related audit messages. This can cause a problem when the
audit log is examined as the netmask/prefix-length is vital in determining
what
On Thursday 29 November 2007 5:34:59 am Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not included
in any of the SPD related audit messages. This can cause a problem when
the audit log is examined
Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not included in
any of the SPD related audit messages. This can cause a problem when the
audit log is examined as the netmask/prefix-length is vital in determining
what network traffic is affected by a particular SPD entry. This patch
