From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
horms@kernel.org, dsahern@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10 net-next] Convert CONFIG_IPV6 to built-in and remove stubs
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 14:02:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e3cd289-2b7a-4f64-99f6-05eb9d67c0fc@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51102620-fb8a-467e-9144-786d1fe27e31@iogearbox.net>
On 09/03/2026 13:58, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 3/9/26 1:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/03/2026 12:38, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
>>> On 3/9/26 11:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2026 03:19, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
>>>>> Historically, the Linux kernel has supported compiling the IPv6 stack as
>>>>> a loadable module. While this made sense in the early days of IPv6
>>>>> adoption, modern deployments and distributions overwhelmingly either
>>>>> build IPv6 directly into the kernel (CONFIG_IPV6=y) or disable it
>>>>> entirely (CONFIG_IPV6=n). The modular IPv6 use-case provides little to
>>>>> no practical benefit today.
>>>>
>>>> It does. We all use generic kernels, thus it is one configuration for
>>>> all boards and some setups have IPv6 and some not. The ones without IPv6
>>>> just don't use that module.
>>>
>>> While I understand this, I would like to clarify that IMHO IPv6 isn't a
>>> secondary protocol and it is fundamental to modern networking. This is
>>
>> Not for end user devices. None of my devices - neither routers, nor
>> embedded boards, nor mobile phone from 5G provider - receive IPv6
>> address, thus for them it is not fundamental.
>
> If that is the case for them, then they should just CONFIG_IPV6=n.
That's not a question to me. Look what I wrote: "We all use generic
kernels" - in a meaning of generic kernel, with generic defconfig built
once serving every machine.
>
>> I agree it is fundamental for your cloud machines and network backbone
>> which you are targeting, but this patchset completely ignores other
>> users calling their use-cases "little practical benefit"! Try running
>> Amiga machine...
>
> Are you talking about [0]? That's legacy hardware and in this case just
Dunno what is legacy there...
> disable IPv6 altogether, why would you still prefer to have it as a module?
That's not a question to me - someone added it as a module now. The
author here changes it to built-in.
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga
>
>> There is no even bloatometer stats for these defconfigs so we can see
>> the impact.
>>
>>> why I believe it should be built-in by default. Currently OpenWRT,
>>> Debian ARM and others already ships the kernel with CONFIG_IPV6=y. I
>>> know that Alpine and Yocto doesn't do that for arm64.
>>
>> Maybe there are other reasons why distro should not choose it as module
>> (like module load calls on ipv6 packets) but that was not explained here.
>>
>> Arch Linux Rpi kernel on arm64 has IPV6=6 and the module itself is 650
>> kB. That's noticeable for smaller arm64 boards.
>>
>> For arm it would be even more noticeable as some have 256 MB RAM like
>> first Rpi.
>
> You are arguing that these will never be able to migrate to an IPv6 world
> given their memory is too small?
No. I argue that they do not need IPv6 in many cases, thus use-case of
IPV6=m is perfectly valid.
The entire discussion here started with "The modular IPv6 use-case
provides little to no practical benefit today."
and this is clearly false. I brought you already few arguments of valid
use case today.
>
>>> I guess the most critical one here is Yocto but if the developer of the
>>> embedded device is sure they won't use IPv6 at all, they should turn it off.
>>>
>>> At the same time, Alpine ships software that enable IPV6 and is
>>> frequently loaded as a module. So the only remaining concern would be
>>> the boot partition size. I don't really have a solution for that problem.
>>>
>>> I think that the infrastructure for allowing IPV6=m is bug-prone and it
>>> impacts performance. Forcing the use of indirect function calls in core
>>> networking, Netfilter or BPF datapaths seems like a heavy tax to me.
>>>
>>>> Also, with these generic kernels (so again all machines are using same
>>>> ones, e.g. distro) users can easily blacklist the module.
>>>
>>> FWIW; users can still boot with kernel command line parameter
>>> ipv6.disable=1 and then IPV6 will be administratively disabled.
>>
>> It's not the same. You enabled it on amiga_defconfig and do you
>> understand what sort of machine is that? The newest have 16 MB RAM, many
>> much less like 2 MB, and ipv6 module on m68k is 400 kB, so pretty
>> significant change.
>
> If IPv6 is not relevant for amiga_defconfig presumably it should just be
> set to CONFIG_IPV6=n?
It might be relevant to some, but this makes it relevant to everyone on
Amiga.
There is a reason why kernel supports modules or do you suggest "modules
provide little to no practical benefit today" and let's just have
everything built-in or disabled.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-09 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-09 2:19 [PATCH 00/10 net-next] Convert CONFIG_IPV6 to built-in and remove stubs Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 01/10 net-next] ipv6: convert CONFIG_IPV6 to built-in only and clean up Kconfigs Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 10:24 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-10 19:40 ` Kolbjørn Barmen
2026-03-10 19:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2026-03-10 20:35 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2026-03-10 21:18 ` Bjørn Mork
2026-03-10 22:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2026-03-11 8:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 02/10 net-next] ipv6: replace IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_IPV6) with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 03/10 net-next] ipv6: remove dynamic ICMPv6 sender registration infrastructure Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 04/10 net-next] ipv6: prepare headers for ipv6_stub removal Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 05/10 net-next] drivers: net: drop ipv6_stub usage and use direct function calls Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 06/10 net-next] ipv4: " Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 07/10 net-next] net: convert remaining ipv6_stub users to " Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 08/10 net-next] bpf: remove ipv6_bpf_stub completely and use " Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 09/10 net-next] ipv6: remove ipv6_stub infrastructure completely Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 2:19 ` [PATCH 10/10 net-next] netfilter: remove nf_ipv6_ops and use direct function calls Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 10:22 ` [PATCH 00/10 net-next] Convert CONFIG_IPV6 to built-in and remove stubs Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-09 10:26 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-09 23:18 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-03-10 20:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-10 21:42 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-03-10 22:15 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 11:33 ` David Woodhouse
2026-03-09 11:38 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 12:43 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-09 12:58 ` Daniel Borkmann
2026-03-09 13:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
2026-03-09 13:14 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-16 10:24 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)
2026-03-16 10:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-16 10:50 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)
2026-03-16 10:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-16 11:10 ` Vlastimil Babka
2026-03-16 11:17 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-09 13:07 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-03-09 14:47 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-03-09 15:10 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
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=4e3cd289-2b7a-4f64-99f6-05eb9d67c0fc@kernel.org \
--to=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fmancera@suse.de \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox