From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from linode.cmadams.net (linode.cmadams.net [45.33.75.86]) (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 65FCB3C6611 for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 21:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.33.75.86 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779916439; cv=none; b=gsR6/DxPbD0qQGbWHe6gmQbzbWETRS8iz6U/c8UU/vxqTub/GmacL3pZjwpMgMeV/NebiU+O1zGZ+iZaptPgUbKvEZO18V4M5aQvjSULg8ZPAkXNEr125dPVapfpyrK0OAGW6davoFMAUZILyYg00AVBjkz/KOjUXn4drxw9kLo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779916439; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fFgXvX91shjT46LgT24NDLGKyFLIO9OYKbQX843VeKk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YMVDgVm1JmkDkMeJuverWGzo3z5Uj9fhcK5TPG4sGeZYi+66tE3lIp40hQOm7DJWygjR6Q4UPy3OMUzNSVZ4F+ry6rGC73XdiuSS81oPdVrN+AI2vGiDNddq2JboVvekIMA1JoVzMGu2EO7Zx1gJdNiJ1j+8guU7M946Kie413A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmadams.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cmadams.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmadams.net header.i=@cmadams.net header.b=Ut2/Eomk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.33.75.86 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmadams.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cmadams.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmadams.net header.i=@cmadams.net header.b="Ut2/Eomk" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by linode.cmadams.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gQj6F301Lz6vkp; Wed, 27 May 2026 16:13:57 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cmadams.net; h= user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject :from:from:date:date:received:received; s=20220404; t= 1779916436; x=1780780437; bh=fFgXvX91shjT46LgT24NDLGKyFLIO9OYKbQ X843VeKk=; b=Ut2/EomkxuteuIE0Th0rISVJvZUW8dfKi6m9uszHFA/YAtEARDx VtjWMiloVtyDw0uE7IFnmDjycFNo3eVRr4yfNgzIHppxFDDY4jBQ00AZGD+x7eQA GbYNKvcGls6ohVhnZYnIB7yvvyCT3cFR7mLKDunpknotmOZvEZWI401AN1StvDdw wszkT6SsJFxzBzlPTNL1jAEFHBy4fDpIQk9muDvJIcGGiCMHtGZJLHRDv7qB81tq c3owOxESl2Hbd3BOaYNk8zOvaSHTPMMepFkQ7BumpWqJXGcnrDuw+481GCK4uoPE rIIo7B4njNuPD3ZGLlO28luecRn1UpbWLpw== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cmadams.net Received: from linode.cmadams.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (linode.cmadams.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10031) with ESMTP id fjomEDCIQTD5; Wed, 27 May 2026 16:13:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cmadams.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by linode.cmadams.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gQj6D4JRSz6sQd; Wed, 27 May 2026 16:13:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 16:13:56 -0500 From: Chris Adams To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Yumei Huang , Fernando Fernandez Mancera , Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: Problem with IPv6 privacy addresses in 7.0 Message-ID: <20260527211356.GA16443@cmadams.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Yumei Huang , Fernando Fernandez Mancera , Ido Schimmel References: <20260521135310.GC977@cmadams.net> <20260526175743.1f2c3761@kernel.org> <20260527010641.GA21073@cmadams.net> <20260526183122.348e44e7@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@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: <20260526183122.348e44e7@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Once upon a time, Jakub Kicinski said: > On Tue, 26 May 2026 20:06:41 -0500 Chris Adams wrote: > > > Hi! Adding more people to CC. Do you know if you upgraded from 6.18 > > > or 6.19? > > > > It was 6.19 to 7.0. > > > > > Would you be able to try testing with some commits reverted? > > > On a quick look the candidates would be: > > > > > > cb3de96eea66 ("ipv6: preserve insertion order for same-scope addresses") > > > > It's this one. > > Phew, the second one was mine :) > > > I figured out that it happens after stopping a VM (and I usually > > start/stop a VM for a bit in the morning, which is why it happened more > > than once). So I set up a VM with a nested VM, running up-to-date > > Fedora 44, and then was able to bisect pretty easily, and it landed on > > this commit. > > > > Fedora is using NetworkManager, and IIRC NM does some part of privacy > > address management (right?). NM didn't change, so maybe this commit is > > confusing something in NM? > > Sounds plausible, pretty sure we knew this commit was risky to begin > with, but we had no direct proof that it'd break real life users. > > Revert is the right course of action here. Would you be willing/able > to send the revert with your problem description and a Fixes tag > pointing to the reverted commit? So... I'm not very git-fluent and haven't submitted a kernel patch in many years, so really am not sure of the necessary/proper steps. -- Chris Adams