Joy Latten wrote:
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same
Joy Latten wrote:
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same
Joy Latten wrote:
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same
Joy Latten wrote:
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, David Miller wrote:
> Thus, below is the patch I will use to fix this bug:
>
> 1) Calling xfrm_audit_log() with a NULL object is a BUG()
> 2) Setting "result" based upon NULL'ness of the object makes no
>sense, either set it to "1" in these cases or use an appropriate
>
From: Joy Latten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:44:30 -0600
> This is similar to another bug reported last month.
> Here is the patch I sent out then. Please let me know
> how it goes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joy Latten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This whole interface is a complete mess.
Joy Latten wrote:
>> i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
>> 2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
>> I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
>> renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at
From: Joy Latten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:44:30 -0600
> This is similar to another bug reported last month.
> Here is the patch I sent out then. Please let me know
> how it goes.
>
> Regards,
> Joy
>
> Signed-off-by: Joy Latten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This one is my bad, I
>i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
>2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
>I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
>renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
>same time so the
Hi All,
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same time so the
Hi All,
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same time so the
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
same time so the tunnel
From: Joy Latten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:44:30 -0600
This is similar to another bug reported last month.
Here is the patch I sent out then. Please let me know
how it goes.
Regards,
Joy
Signed-off-by: Joy Latten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This one is my bad, I should have
Joy Latten wrote:
i upgraded to vanilla kernel 2.6.20 and while i was using strongswan
2.8.2 to setup an IPSEC VPN i got the following kernel Ooops.
I had successfully established the same tunnel a few times, but key
renegotiation caused a problem ( both ends did not renegotiate at the
From: Joy Latten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:44:30 -0600
This is similar to another bug reported last month.
Here is the patch I sent out then. Please let me know
how it goes.
Signed-off-by: Joy Latten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This whole interface is a complete mess.
Calling
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, David Miller wrote:
Thus, below is the patch I will use to fix this bug:
1) Calling xfrm_audit_log() with a NULL object is a BUG()
2) Setting result based upon NULL'ness of the object makes no
sense, either set it to 1 in these cases or use an appropriate
error
16 matches
Mail list logo