Herbert Xu a écrit :
David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nicolas DICHTEL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:30 +0100
in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
xfrm state can be different for
From: Nicolas DICHTEL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:39:12 +0100
Yes, that's what I mean ;-) It was the same problem for not-connected
socket in UDP.
Ok, I see. Nicolas, can you resend your patch to me via
private email? Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
From: Nicolas DICHTEL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:30 +0100
in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
xfrm state can be different for the same destination.
Attached, a proposed patch.
We cache the
David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nicolas DICHTEL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:00:30 +0100
in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
xfrm state can be different for the same destination.
Hi all,
in the same way of this patch, why dst_entry are stored for
RAW socket ? In case of specific IPSec rules for ICMPv6,
xfrm state can be different for the same destination.
Attached, a proposed patch.
Regards,
Nicolas
[IPV6] Don't store dst_entry for RAW socket
Signed-off-by: Nicolas
