From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: Antony Antony <antony.antony@secunet.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<devel@linux-ipsec.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in migrate call
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aS1eEWq2aFHWV5sH@secunet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d587781b6703af40a717d3278fad4bc37c1e91ac.1764061159.git.antony.antony@secunet.com>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:29:08AM +0100, Antony Antony wrote:
> The existing code does not allow migration from UDP encapsulation to
> non-encapsulation (ESP). This is useful when migrating from behind a
> NAT to no NAT, or from IPv4 with NAT to IPv6 without NAT.
>
> With this fix, while migrating state, the existing encap will be copied
> only if the migrate call includes the encap attribute.
>
> Which fixes tag should I add?
> Fixes: 80c9abaabf42 ("[XFRM]: Extension for dynamic update of endpoint address(es)") ?
> or
> Fixes: 4ab47d47af20 ("xfrm: extend MIGRATE with UDP encapsulation port") ?
If this is a fix, it should go to the ipsec tree, not to
ipsec-next. But is this really a fix? Do we want to have
that backported? It changes the behaviour when the original
state used encapsulation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-01 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-25 9:27 [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 0/5] xfrm: XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE_STATE new netlink message Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:29 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in migrate call Antony Antony
2025-12-01 9:21 ` Steffen Klassert [this message]
2025-11-25 9:29 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 2/5] xfrm: rename reqid in xfrm_migrate Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:29 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 3/5] xfrm: new method XFRM_MSG_MIGRATE_STATE Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:30 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 4/5] xfrm: reqid is invarient in old migration Antony Antony
2025-11-25 9:30 ` [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 5/5] xfrm: check that SA is in VALID state before use Antony Antony
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=aS1eEWq2aFHWV5sH@secunet.com \
--to=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=antony.antony@secunet.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devel@linux-ipsec.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=kuba@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).