On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:42, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 15:50, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >>> That's the case I'm looking at. Not doing it is demonstrably wrong, > >>> yet you're suggesting it shouldn't be done? Is there a test case? > >> > >> interop-ikev1-strongswan-01-xauth > > > > Is there another test? That test seems to pass when I enable the > > "correct" code in send_notification() (in fact, the code in question > > isn't executed). > > The test generates the generic IKEv1 packets, the XAUTH (phase15 msgid) > packets, the DPD packets and the Delete packets. It should be exercising > all functions ? > > Are you looking at an older version of that testcase that did not check > for DPD and Delete ?
I don't think so. The code path in question only gets exercised when sending a notification response. For instance, ikev1-algo-esp-sha2-05, does tickle the code path so I'm looking at that and interop tests with libreswan as the responder. _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
