From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: Antony Antony <antony.antony@secunet.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<devel@linux-ipsec.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in migrate call
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aS1eEWq2aFHWV5sH@secunet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d587781b6703af40a717d3278fad4bc37c1e91ac.1764061159.git.antony.antony@secunet.com>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:29:08AM +0100, Antony Antony wrote:
> The existing code does not allow migration from UDP encapsulation to
> non-encapsulation (ESP). This is useful when migrating from behind a
> NAT to no NAT, or from IPv4 with NAT to IPv6 without NAT.
>
> With this fix, while migrating state, the existing encap will be copied
> only if the migrate call includes the encap attribute.
>
> Which fixes tag should I add?
> Fixes: 80c9abaabf42 ("[XFRM]: Extension for dynamic update of endpoint address(es)") ?
> or
> Fixes: 4ab47d47af20 ("xfrm: extend MIGRATE with UDP encapsulation port") ?
If this is a fix, it should go to the ipsec tree, not to
ipsec-next. But is this really a fix? Do we want to have
that backported? It changes the behaviour when the original
state used encapsulation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-01 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-25 9:27 [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 0/5] xfrm: XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE_STATE new netlink message Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:29 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in migrate call Antony Antony
2025-12-01 9:21 ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2025-11-25 9:29 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 2/5] xfrm: rename reqid in xfrm_migrate Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:29 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 3/5] xfrm: new method XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE_STATE Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:30 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 4/5] xfrm: reqid is invarient in old migration Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:30 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 5/5] xfrm: check that SA is in VALID state before use Antony Antony
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aS1eEWq2aFHWV5sH@secunet.com \
--to=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=antony.antony@secunet.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devel@linux-ipsec.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.