Hi,
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 13:20:46 +0100
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 06:25:20PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> Yes, if there is another better idea, it will be welcome.
>> For this moment, the diff is the best idea for me.
>
> Sorry, no better idea. I have no experiance
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 06:25:20PM +0900, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> Yes, if there is another better idea, it will be welcome.
> For this moment, the diff is the best idea for me.
Sorry, no better idea. I have no experiance with l2pt. Codewise
the diff looks fine, but I don't understand the
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 01:20:49 +0100
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> I don't know much about l2tp, pipex or npppd. So I cannot say if
> the new logic is correct. But I guess you have tested that.
Yes, I've tested some L2TP/IPsec cases already.
> The tdb mutex and ref counting looks correct.
>
>>
I don't know much about l2tp, pipex or npppd. So I cannot say if
the new logic is correct. But I guess you have tested that.
The tdb mutex and ref counting looks correct.
> + struct tdb *tdb, *tdblocal = NULL;
The variable names tdb and tdbp are used very inconsistently within
IPsec.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:27:06 +0100
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:53:34PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This question is mostly for bluhm@. Should the gettdbbyflow() grab the
>> extra reference on returned `tdbp' like other other gettdb*() do? I'm
>> pointing
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:53:34PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This question is mostly for bluhm@. Should the gettdbbyflow() grab the
> extra reference on returned `tdbp' like other other gettdb*() do? I'm
> pointing this because we are going to not rely on the netlock when doing
>
Hi,
This question is mostly for bluhm@. Should the gettdbbyflow() grab the
extra reference on returned `tdbp' like other other gettdb*() do? I'm
pointing this because we are going to not rely on the netlock when doing
`tdbp' dereference.
Also could this block be rewritten? It looks a little
Hi,
Let me update the diff. Previous has a problem in ipsp_spd_lookup()
which uses "rn" without initialization.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 21:44:20 +0900 (JST)
YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2021 19:11:09 +0900 (JST)
> YASUOKA Masahiko wrote:
>> Radek reported a problem to misc@ that
