From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D73C432BE for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3C760F37 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233110AbhGZHdY (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 03:33:24 -0400 Received: from mailout1.secunet.com ([62.96.220.44]:54776 "EHLO mailout1.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232876AbhGZHdX (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2021 03:33:23 -0400 Received: from cas-essen-02.secunet.de (unknown [10.53.40.202]) by mailout1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CF7800053; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:13:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) by cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:13:50 +0200 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:13:50 +0200 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 25FF531801F6; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:13:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:13:50 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Corey Minyard CC: Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , , Subject: Re: IPSec questions and comments Message-ID: <20210726081350.GM893739@gauss3.secunet.de> References: <20210724010117.GA633665@minyard.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210724010117.GA633665@minyard.net> X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) To mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 08:01:17PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote: > , "David S. Miller" > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Bcc: > Subject: IPSec questions > Reply-To: minyard@acm.org > > I've been going through the XFRM code trying to understand it. I've > been documenting things in the code as I go. > > I have a specific usage question, then a general question: > > 1) In struct xfrm_dst, what is the difference between the route and path > fields? From what I can tell, in the first element of a bundle they > will both point the route the packet will take after it has been > transformed. In the other elements of a bundle, route is the same as in > the first element and path will be NULL. Is this really the intent? > Can path just be eliminated? Eyal gave a good explanation of this. > > 2) This code is really hard to understand. Nobody should have to go > through what I'm going through. If I can convince my employer to allow > me to submit the comments I'm adding, would that be something acceptable? > It would obviously take a lot of time to review. If nobody's going to > have the time to review it, I don't need to put forth the extra effort > to make it submittable. Documentation is always welcome. If you submit your documentation in small reviewable patches, then it should be accepted and merged over time.