From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.secunet.com (mx1.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) (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 CB80D21D3C9 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761811704; cv=none; b=JtUbqyeD36m8h+SzMrmKu3g1uGu/IzYY8ontJKckh4YF+zGB7beA+b3Bc7VcOhrOtm6f76GQtwhDwRmMdXFx07br/fohV3mLuaiD+k0GagqF9HDWkgANAeTW74USIlVNY53AVCFsxgeCwYpOEXmAyGsMUP2EzOwP0UjFQibp9RQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761811704; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iYmSRn54aVNb5cInRyR2epoXsk8M+oHPrtX+OlZJLhk=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cT6Z/SjKkWy+xLyKd5Xt+azKxWXcXWVuvYTAWBgoqVQuUhR3TZI22Mu8QWw57XrqJUcK/1SW7OX8nXOe1ya3m3ZxZ9zHBoYxgMiiFPo9d1zIX/4N55qdKwd4GRXGTdwzJcxj7FaBDxHa4VLMNYahRvPAzRAS+ruek+ZidxgFcfY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b=HWXdQYUv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b="HWXdQYUv" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCEA20891; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:08:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from mx1.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZcLPqL8usikz; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:08:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from EXCH-01.secunet.de (unknown [10.32.0.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5740E2083F; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:08:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com 5740E2083F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1761811692; bh=XZ8vwGAWf1a2UoylOo0fa3gnmQ0Co9koDKimV5Qtnd4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HWXdQYUvimHyZxg8jY8w58XHzfgWO2IlTETmHE+kX2upfty9BL43hGogXVi9x5Xi1 5XwFz3CTL4kpl9RwJTpjSAS/9CriKsdq/XpjvZxoHcWJA+KRpP0Hpwj6k50eDVCP/E MvLRLcLobSx1DVmt74QdyN2weLnNBDcsDE6nWVhihNjtNlonoZQhW5VY96VlEJy63B Fs1Dn1apsjcXk/hG5Kc19/xaYhAuD8nOw1+uN3a68/effy/ai9V0PhN0luZHhncb/8 KDY6V8ifAzhkIJT77PJjQ3qRNNBR8JdwsGHeU36RnLBjI4RFrMLTLL8hjBGKfx2sPt s2tZDsvhitO5w== Received: from secunet.com (10.182.7.193) by EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.2.2562.17; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:08:11 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 1008396 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:08:11 -0000 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:08:11 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert To: Sabrina Dubroca CC: Jianbo Liu , , , , Cosmin Ratiu , Herbert Xu , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet inner protocol Message-ID: References: <20251028023013.9836-1-jianbol@nvidia.com> <20251028023013.9836-3-jianbol@nvidia.com> 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: X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 04:04:36PM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > 2025-10-28, 21:36:17 +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote: > > > > My proposed plan is: > > > > Send the patch 1 and patch 3 (including the xfrm_ip2inner_mode change) > > together to the ipsec tree. They are self-contained fixes. > > So, keep v3 of this series unchanged. > > > Separately, after those are accepted, I can modify and re-submit that patch > > [1] to ipsec-next that removes the now-redundant checks from the other > > callers (VTI, etc.), leveraging the updated helper function. > > > > This way, the critical fixes are self-contained and backportable, while the > > cleanup of other callers happens later in the development cycle. > > The only (small) drawback is leaving the duplicate code checking > AF_UNSPEC in the existing callers of xfrm_ip2inner_mode, but I guess > that's ok. > > > Steffen, is it ok for you to > > - have a duplicate AF_UNSPEC check in callers of xfrm_ip2inner_mode > (the existing "default to x->inner_mode, call xfrm_ip2inner_mode if > AF_UNSPEC", and the new one added to xfrm_ip2inner_mode by this > patch) in the ipsec tree and then in stable? > > - do the clean up (like the diff I pasted in my previous email, or > something smaller if [1] is applied separately) in ipsec-next after > ipsec is merged into it? I'm OK with this, I can take v3 as is.