From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-44.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-44.mimecast.com [205.139.111.44]) (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 1BDB314D440 for ; Tue, 7 May 2024 08:52:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.139.111.44 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715071936; cv=none; b=fGITqPxXFxg5Er6zfCbZg4fvK1kpFTf8fAORacJFUXP0Win5oqI7yppYAYzdbi3qzVEINsQoPFrerx3qIgp83MJXzw0JWrhKzaG4iftdg48hsdNJY/dOqei9ke8Dj1csLjMoZxxNTS/OgUP/ZOYLSyKcIBsICFnc1H/uxr7rX7k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715071936; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PcC6gv/Xh6AX9bpLAJzrtC5YtnizlAobd29EGBRTI8Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=k35dlcErTi3mlEdknmTWvDVEEkH6abukLKfeSIy09W2y4mNWWcNoYcsarP5SYFlJvl5uqOGbOxsSxX3d16igND/ppBo/5gdUgufgFoRmqlNHv/SfXKAJzgEJPu7zyQC3Uqnk06b3qhdyKSwECLBkoaao7x/kyzzUnieMJjjA3TA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.139.111.44 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-478-EKjwsSalOS-woX3gmevNcQ-1; Tue, 07 May 2024 04:52:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: EKjwsSalOS-woX3gmevNcQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6DD3800BA4; Tue, 7 May 2024 08:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hog (unknown [10.39.193.137]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151DC40C6CB6; Tue, 7 May 2024 08:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 10:52:05 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Antony Antony Cc: Antony Antony , Jakub Kicinski , Steffen Klassert , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , David Ahern , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Herbert Xu , Shuah Khan , devel@linux-ipsec.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/2] fix icmp error source address over xfrm tunnel Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.2 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: queasysnail.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2024-05-06, 17:57:23 +0200, Antony Antony wrote: > Hi Sabrina, >=20 > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 03:36:15PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca via Devel wrote= : > > 2024-05-06, 09:58:26 +0200, Antony Antony wrote: > > > Hi, > > > This fix, originally intended for XFRM/IPsec, has been recommended by > > > Steffen Klassert to submit to the net tree. > > >=20 > > > The patch addresses a minor issue related to the IPv4 source address = of > > > ICMP error messages, which originated from an old 2011 commit: > > >=20 > > > 415b3334a21a ("icmp: Fix regression in nexthop resolution during repl= ies.") > > >=20 > > > The omission of a "Fixes" tag in the following commit is deliberate > > > to prevent potential test failures and subsequent regression issues > > > that may arise from backporting this patch all stable kerenels. > >=20 > > What kind of regression do you expect? If there's a risk of >=20 > For example, an old testing scripts with hardcoded source IP address assu= me > that the "Unreachable response" will have the previous behavior. Such=20 > testing script may trigger regression when this patch is backported. =20 > Consequently, there may be discussions on whether this patch has broken t= he=20 > 10-year-old test scripts, which may be hard to fix. Ok, that seems like an acceptable level of "regression" to me. Thanks for explaining. > > regression, I'm not sure net-next is that much "better" than net or > > stable. If a user complains about the new behavior breaking their > > setup, my understanding is that you would likely have to revert the > > patch anyway, or at least add some way to toggle the behavior. >=20 > My hope is that if this patch is applied to net-next without a "Fixes" ta= g, > users would fix their testing scripts properly. I don't think the lack of a fixes tag will make people fix broken test scripts, but maybe I'm too pessimistic. --=20 Sabrina