From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261437AbULXTXY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261443AbULXTXY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0500 Received: from web51506.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.198]:57982 "HELO web51506.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261437AbULXTXP (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:23:15 -0500 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=jegRsKm5DEtdIjhUYieV00MTVWI7q18XO0fVk3RGgGkKPyiV9yjGta3E3AGPIRj3x6zUVARG8b5wsedas6Fn/i7O6QljAzDprohDgwiU/efXppB+DdACJPZGXruMlMA2xXGghaSujbh6M+hxtwd6cWAZfOzCqjVEc6GqrGQu6xw= ; Message-ID: <20041224192311.67180.qmail@web51506.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:23:11 -0800 (PST) From: Park Lee Subject: Re: [Ipsec] Issue on input process of Linux native IPsec To: David Dillow Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, ipsec-tools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1103869407.3016.7.camel@ori.thedillows.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 at 01:23, David Dillow wrote: > On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 22:29 -0800, Park Lee wrote: > > Thanks. > > But, After a packet was received, It has already > > been processed by xfrm4_rcv(), xfrm4_rcv_encap(), > > ah_input(), esp_input(),etc. so, I think that > > there is no need to search(or created) a bundle > > everytime a packet is recieved, since it has > > already been processed. Am I right? > > Are you sure you're not seeing the creation of a > reply packet? Unless you're testing with UDP and a > listening socket on the receiver, you're going to > get a response packet if the incoming packet makes > it through the iptables rules. You were testing > with ICMP echo requests (ping), if I recall. > > I think either you're basing your idea of the > packet flow on printk()'s,or I'm just too tired and > missing where xfrm_lookup() gets called on the > rx path... Yes, I'm testing with ping and basing my idea of the packet flow on printk(). > (yes, sk can be NULL there, but I was wrong about > it being called for Rx'd packets, I think). Does this mean that when the reply (response) packet is sending out through xfrm_lookup(), the sk parameter of xfrm_lookup() will not be NULL? and When the incoming packet itself goes through xfrm_lookup(), the sk parameter will be NULL? Thank you and Merry Christmas. ===== Best Regards, Park Lee __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail