From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: "Kai Lüke" <kailueke@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Paul Chaignon <paul@cilium.io>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error"
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 17:10:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220301161001.GV1223722@gauss3.secunet.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcc83e93-4a28-896c-b3d3-8d675bb705eb@linux.microsoft.com>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:48:38PM +0100, Kai Lüke wrote:
> > I agree with Eyal here. As far as Cilium is concerned, this is not
> > causing any regression. Only the second commit, 68ac0f3810e7 ("xfrm:
> > state and policy should fail if XFRMA_IF_ID 0") causes issues in a
> > previously-working setup in Cilium. We don't use xfrm interfaces.
> >
> I see this as a very generic question of changing userspace behavior or
> not, regardless if we know how many users are affected, and from what I
> know there are similar cases in the kernel where the response was that
> breaking userspace is a no go - even if the intention was to be helpful
> by having early errors.
In general I agree that the userspace ABI has to be stable, but
this never worked. We changed the behaviour from silently broken to
notify userspace about a misconfiguration.
It is the question what is more annoying for the users. A bug that
we can never fix, or changing a broken behaviour to something that
tells you at least why it is not working.
In such a case we should gauge what's the better solution. Here
I tend to keep it as it is.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-01 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-01 13:15 [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error" kailueke
2022-03-01 13:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "xfrm: state and policy should fail if XFRMA_IF_ID 0" kailueke
2022-03-01 13:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error" Eyal Birger
2022-03-01 14:17 ` Kai Lüke
2022-03-01 14:34 ` Eyal Birger
2022-03-01 15:09 ` Paul Chaignon
2022-03-01 15:48 ` Kai Lüke
2022-03-01 16:10 ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2022-03-01 16:44 ` Kai Lueke
2022-03-02 9:27 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2022-03-02 16:04 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-02 18:11 ` Kai Lueke
2022-03-03 5:33 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-03 7:54 ` Steffen Klassert
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-02-28 18:55 Kai Lüke
2022-02-28 18:51 Kai Lüke
2022-02-28 18:49 Kai Lüke
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=20220301161001.GV1223722@gauss3.secunet.de \
--to=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=eyal.birger@gmail.com \
--cc=kailueke@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@cilium.io \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox