I noticed:
commit 91a1e853710771cc2e4f08359792c35750b9b930 Author: D. Hugh Redelmeier <[email protected]> Date: Sat Mar 11 17:35:38 2017 -0500 pluto: adjust code to reflect meaning of "roof" Our convention is that a "roof" is greater than any proper value. (A "ceiling" or "max" would be the largest proper value.) diff --git a/include/ietf_constants.h b/include/ietf_constants.h index a318922..cd81f8c 100644 --- a/include/ietf_constants.h +++ b/include/ietf_constants.h @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ enum ikev2_trans_type_encr { IKEv2_ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_B = 26, /* CAMELLIA_CCM_12 RFC 5529 */ IKEv2_ENCR_CAMELLIA_CCM_C = 27, /* CAMELLIA_CCM_16 RFC 5529 */ IKEv2_ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305 = 28, /* RFC7634 */ - IKEv2_ENCR_ROOF = IKEv2_ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305, + IKEv2_ENCR_ROOF, I'm a bit concerned about you adding an algorithm entry in the list that is not real. What happens now when we receive an ENCR algo with number 29 ? I'm surprised this passed the internal enum check too without crashing because no name was added to the enum_names in constants.c ? Maybe I should have called these MAX instead of ROOF? I purposefully avoided adding an entry and choose to just have an alias name instead. Paul _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
