From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-b-106.mailbox.org (mout-b-106.mailbox.org [195.10.208.46]) (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 645B7485934 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.10.208.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790586127; cv=none; b=dZb7Wrzz1Hyiy5smVL+Wz45N6HXa/OLg45m3zn0JBLzFRenTLxEFz5rEZy8Fey2O9iQA4BSJwKCGSZJU3ngBqGM0v3rbd8VvQrhwQLbtSkJbu81BRhHnOM9NHuDkdWo43BY293B5jdI44MsCXUO9k2ZMrOCbJ5GEM6Vqvv96Fhk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790586127; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KpDbosgzFURQlG4Re7sBNnDrAAwCRcvEDfEtveW0l70=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=O+Fz8stAJdR1J0b5f24CewjSmjewc38x0w/x1dxlfxoYFyP4RkyWiEcOzBDIneADWs85PGcn4GKcVny24UROjesq1ajQptxWEkq1YB0ZKOnZ+jH+lo5lqGqoDAWSjl+a8ErmbL8w/IEi24L+5QASQtmy+ZyIXl3RW6ah/GR+kQ8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mandelbit.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mandelbit.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mandelbit.com header.i=@mandelbit.com header.b=zu+VZrmW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.10.208.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mandelbit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mandelbit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mandelbit.com header.i=@mandelbit.com header.b="zu+VZrmW" Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519MLKEM768 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-b-106.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4htZtT0Wg1zNll4; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:56:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mandelbit.com; s=MBO0001; t=1790585809; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pQCXLeyQhc4kKC3F89Lil+fvvhoG4qFEfP8XB0RWdYg=; b=zu+VZrmW6pFDW/nHHkp2gXkbV53MfOedf4bHgYXI4JANzsJEAJr4ty0Gc0iv4m0N999Ga/ o84WWmf/hYPtrFrMOGOwSHv1RAKQ24XUZDKK9o2sgNBGJ68zmyvr6uXR5nh5sEAIvjvXPL frme5P4fEvoWceiIJsqHh76pdMBm1QxsYntwHaNz9la3g2ZHZ65sCq3H9yYPuonbclh4hS RdnBdpyYbJnOuVh3s7oCqYIgLR6RLNIF1N0UEdtAPAYKaGAXIbbWtVti/3W9KXp9zzMp5d 6p5KQW5k/e/TfZHFnL+3PxYABSq73v/U070K6Ouoofy2Zr4NHHvngAucUtDLvA== Authentication-Results: outgoing_mbo_mout; dkim=none; spf=pass (outgoing_mbo_mout: domain of ralf@mandelbit.com designates 2001:67c:2050:b231:465::202 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ralf@mandelbit.com From: Ralf Lici To: Ralf Lici Cc: David Ahern , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Antonio Quartulli , Sabrina Dubroca , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] ovpn: avoid caching stale IPv6 dst after FIB changes Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 10:56:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20260928085639.151005-1-ralf@mandelbit.com> In-Reply-To: <20260918202718.36933-1-ralf@mandelbit.com> References: <20260918202718.36933-1-ralf@mandelbit.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4htZtT0Wg1zNll4 Hi David, Just following up on this. Does my previous example clarify why storing an old dst with a new cookie defeats reuse-time validation? If so, would you prefer that I pursue the kernel-wide lookup-provenance approach described in the RFC, or keep the fix self-contained in ovpn? The same late-cookie-sampling pattern is used by several drivers and callers in the networking core, so I think fixing it generically is the better architectural choice. If changing the generic interfaces is not acceptable, I can rework the patch as an ovpn-local fix, although that would duplicate IPv6 routing details in the driver and leave the equivalent pattern elsewhere unchanged. Thanks, -- Ralf Lici Mandelbit Srl