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 53CE32C3262 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 12:29:03 +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=1762000147; cv=none; b=TgP67TIV4pXJjMLfru1gu2By1zzfY8Ugpeh/4qALaVFPXTwGjuziZ0VhXJEwL22LNyvXmGl7CEasdXjbQbcIKTcIVOc7gJmt3UXzzkMuPHX21gxGNH/5fsfgCJH2KXlobKS4cvN/5F1TiSAT72lB3auRUMiYPK6ZzTpd1AT+pMY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762000147; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C7wETZRKVW0fgyn58PIxQJiQi34YdSePuGaI7NkiBY4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GZOaLyk/RiRRYib2E+qKuqtw1AMp41AFxOSS9R2s+qNs+LCkcWlw8klPFi1XAA2AQkLAXX/hPLRBDGyUEgd8EeglfNvdm60cFt4t/LggC+g+GCT2lzxeaPv4yYoKdCdhm+TfkTRCqu88tZDV2LrcLWxuOck1Xy/cq9NIdF8N6pU= 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=OgJ+qHDB; 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="OgJ+qHDB" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB6920851; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 13:29:02 +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 Uiy034Ta2Ebg; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 13:29:02 +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 E64E220754; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 13:29:01 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com E64E220754 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1762000141; bh=zuku8xs+dj1BbxEn5J9Rrla39ntgSPFxuazw8ATktps=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OgJ+qHDB2sVA7e5WMIPgn9hJHiULWxN2Z1tPJyvXPHJcJd4WuRxfafwdEPwHCUZKq HTlM8z7nX68r7v/bMUyXd/Qc+aYvfV0u6ayjNIT4UTB+tvAzpSB5eHN2hlksUkmO5m EQgIzCeDgUHWsOkT7UBLtKZ6DU2i/Qw7LfV3MUZwlcwMjCO5Of+6w7dH+Y3fqeNUC/ y9GKQVZGouoZ31UObF7rG+1j6VGLoVjg9AKqTnlRM+4NMLUJStDpUVBYcG5W5lE33p HizYsKjWicZj9WZDlg58GGvjqbDPDV8QbubyARd0YyR21ejixe6/7muFbOLeUiXLZX JQBex0WNOsViQ== 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; Sat, 1 Nov 2025 13:29:01 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 3045485 invoked by uid 1000); Sat, 01 Nov 2025 12:29:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2025 13:29:01 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert To: Jianbo Liu CC: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: Correct inner packet family determination Message-ID: References: <20251028023013.9836-1-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: <20251028023013.9836-1-jianbol@nvidia.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 04:22:46AM +0200, Jianbo Liu wrote: > This series contains two patches addressing issues in the XFRM > subsystem where the code incorrectly relied on static family fields > from the xfrm_state instead of determining the family from the actual > packet being processed. > > This was particularly problematic in tunnel mode scenarios when using > states that could handle different inner families. > > V3: > - Change xfrm_ip2inner_mode for the sel family specified > > V2: > - The original first patch was sent separately to "ipsec-next" > > Jianbo Liu (2): > xfrm: Check inner packet family directly from skb_dst > xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet inner protocol Applied, thaks a lot Jianbo!