From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.secunet.com (mx1.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B98FF379ED7; Thu, 7 May 2026 09:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778147828; cv=none; b=elv2RLTHEe4uFZRpY3fubtsKvVQFAQmHHkrTPyc+R4W5W5ELl0H/EaCNeSAFSG5CJfBhTIMpi8NH5WWlyvU3Pf3oVcDX+qvQ4lmAJbLTEYNeK2aTHR0swJBV1vMGK0TPyEK1SCMFzon4rzZUeEVZ0abNBF7zFCRNVl+wHMnduxQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778147828; c=relaxed/simple; bh=O+5jgUrWPjry/W0UJbvzKTQMNjti2z78IZOE8hKG+Zo=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IbEap+WcYtb9VcN4hGWsJFIfM8uX49VZ10brU1IDmOMiOKS7ToUe24+kAHt2ui2Eg/aSA/CFByfTiuvsmMUgnDRSDwvVlqUuuW1x9cgqawTB3hH19H13S/1a0D3duaItCFnY6v7IMwOtuq9BOUHFi0qXdcygJPQwSjTUZ8uG3hA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b=x8C7C6+Q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b="x8C7C6+Q" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF21207E4; Thu, 7 May 2026 11:57:03 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from mx1.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vB-CUbQZBU4X; Thu, 7 May 2026 11:57:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EXCH-01.secunet.de (rl1.secunet.de [10.32.0.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF44520704; Thu, 7 May 2026 11:57:02 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com EF44520704 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1778147823; bh=MOYDlUqeISiGGsbkC1yMJoUSWt54w/2P59yNM6sgj+4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=x8C7C6+QFhWbuLOlA4f2TLqiJMhlazJt2gYIt//j0sqPsJ1u3xUKKcidONFWViTmT lJu132TWKWkxmVHz8nriv8AIBrMaRLkd0Qmu+cAuQkZMLk5OSsCNbkrijh1glWPcbe BvVLC60aJ9Yt1jsan8m/3mWMYZMaFIyzSPWez5YB/c1sgtfKS/eDK6bBJy/qJctuM/ Vzuel4ZWycS+xUSPq6QOFP6UQqDxDqosGpetYk8AOAgwn2tpE80wOd50q3e9XYAkgY B9tFnw5bdoqqHXb91Imk683M6f7JgEsrHJ4OEo+YkHGnCqXo9PHDJH/Fk6Syisj+i2 N3nLAHNjqhdhg== Received: from secunet.com (10.182.7.193) by EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.17; Thu, 7 May 2026 11:56:59 +0200 Received: (nullmailer pid 1537037 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 07 May 2026 09:56:58 -0000 Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 11:56:58 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Sabrina Dubroca CC: Antony Antony , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , David Ahern , Masahide NAKAMURA , Paul Moore , Stephen Smalley , Ondrej Mosnacek , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , , , , , Chiachang Wang , Yan Yan , Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v8 04/14] xfrm: fix NAT-related field inheritance in SA migration Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: EXCH-03.secunet.de (10.32.0.183) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 11:33:09AM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > 2026-05-05, 06:32:43 +0200, Antony Antony wrote: > > During SA migration via xfrm_state_clone_and_setup(), > > nat_keepalive_interval was silently dropped and never copied to the new > > SA. mapping_maxage was unconditionally copied even when migrating to a > > non-encapsulated SA. > > mapping_maxage should be harmless (0/unused on non-encap), but I think > migrating nat_keepalive_interval should be considered a fix: > > Fixes: f531d13bdfe3 ("xfrm: support sending NAT keepalives in ESP in UDP states") > > (maybe even split out of this series, but that would cause a conflict > with the previous patch) Can this be backported without the previous patches? If not, we might need to split it out.