[Swan-dev] rename .st_msgid -> .st_v1_msgid or .v1st_msgid

[Andrew Cagney]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 13:55, Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:00:26AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > In IKEv2, at any point, two Message IDs are being juggled:
> > - the ID of SA's last message request
> > - the ID of SA's last message response
> >
> > hence, a single .st_msgid which can be traced back to IKEv1 isn't
> > sufficient.   Instead IKEv2 should be using the fields:
> >
> >         /* message ID sequence for things we send (as initiator) */
> >         msgid_t st_msgid_lastack;               /* last one peer
> > acknowledged  - host order */
> >         msgid_t st_msgid_nextuse;               /* next one to use -
> > host order */
> >         /* message ID sequence for things we receive (as responder) */
> >         msgid_t st_msgid_lastrecv;             /* last one peer sent -
> > Host order v2 only */
> >         msgid_t st_msgid_lastreplied;         /* to decide retransmit
> > CREATE_CHILD_SA */
>
> we are tracking 3. I wonder if we should track 4.

> Initiating an exchange:
> st_v2_msgid_nextuse
> st_v2_msgid_lastack
>
> responding to an exchange
>
> st_v2_msgid_lastreplied
> I think it would be nice to have
> st_v2_mstid_last_received /* received but not replied yet */

I suspect that is .st_msgid_lastrecv, but there's the problem - I'm not sure :-)

> > Given this, I'm planning on renaming .st_msgid (and likely the above).
> > Since we've settled on v[12]* as the name prefix convention several
> > new names come to mind:
> >
> > - st_v1_msgid
>
> st_v1_msgid

Yea.

> > (PS: I've also a strong preference for sticking v2 somewhere in any
> > v2-only thing as that way I know it isn't generic and may have to
> > handle ikev1)
>
> my preference is use as first prefix or the second.
>
> The one in md would become
> msgid_t v2_msgid_received ?

I've a patch to delete that field - ever since .hdr.isa_msgid was
switched to host-order it became redundant.  Except it doesn't work -
instead it keeps flushing out increasingly subtle problems with the
Message ID code :-(  and hence this post.

Andrew