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 40AB42BE02B for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 09:21:24 +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=1764580887; cv=none; b=ncwN61BESuxmb0XD1M7dl46HC1ZNUdXZVqp/00226xg2NiQsWvQPvVjTAfP4AHksKO689ZdHXNFDp1s7qcvj10YdIkMmlhlzrntYZiKZcr92RAuN49f1300J9WlhoPl8w7rAVbHevXu8iIaMxw9WLLr9ujGqHZ5WdGlv7dRhQZ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764580887; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CTVy3s/Xt0eylaFoqObBDMUaU4xkriYRcRfCbi41sy4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SgmQMh91USVOHPDJaNSmU0gIPspXUtkDHtAPeSPBHdatOM9MtiRQ9EzxC/rMJOda6gpDBgIrZi4Xo/oJD6k9d1qcqwd/InT77+O1+n5dsQRXzPbvn+vTrb1Wni4oPP9ZivksTNWqdtj9ozS/ktNjsx7dsj9zCmGx+XI37njMoIU= 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=g4hdLCiL; 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="g4hdLCiL" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5535520518; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:23 +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 KAKbp6wgWgPv; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:22 +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 CAADF2050A; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:22 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com CAADF2050A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1764580882; bh=6PLAA5NNOLaIMgHJUEUQKxKjfjO5R+TA0N8seXJUBjc=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=g4hdLCiLm7wk04DFP3a2of2kZxLBC+wYbPk2aqjKJj7JH7m2gNn4MYrgdNfUtlNQZ WEeu4Qyeb3oLxB6IPDDNmwIhJdlT99yjrL6USJywunrsRVzFYtARyceMVPJgZOqG3a ZK/YmOC+0EGF9HShVD84rU1SLqMeXamgv5VxCOMHdMqG+Vu8TQ0LXOtPWpIU2nVf6A 5HBqQzTQhFG8t5sH77vyLt2fZM8PKkeaObrzFBEUEWgY3VrGH6eZWQ24cEHVkiRLRT +EfFF7VAus6I5UUDTpee1BsKZMBnU4puymhUSxInADf493kgo/2xW6IQuggrl+DDsk qMTSszkE3/Sxg== 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; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:22 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 1138057 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 01 Dec 2025 09:21:21 -0000 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:21:21 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert To: Antony Antony CC: Herbert Xu , , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ipsec-next 1/5] xfrm: migrate encap should be set in migrate call Message-ID: References: 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, 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.