From: Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de>
To: "Martin Jabůrek" <martin.jaburek@suse.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] selftests: net: add IPv4 and IPv6 address order check
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 13:02:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <af33b16c-fe84-4319-a17c-3880fb6c8ca5@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260914065848.10518-1-martin.jaburek@suse.com>
On 9/14/26 8:58 AM, Martin Jabůrek wrote:
> Introduce the following new tests: `ipv4_verify_same_scope_addr_order`,
> `ipv4_verify_inter_scope_addr_order`, `ipv6_verify_same_scope_addr_order`,
> `ipv6_verify_inter_scope_addr_order` to check the ordering of a
> set of IP addresses after being inserted.
>
> The implementations of these protocols are inconsistent
> in regard to address ordering. IPv4 addresses stay in the
> same order as inserted while IPv6 addresses appear in
> reverse order. This inconsistency has prompted attempts
> to unify the ordering, so both protocols act the same
> (as IPv4). This however caused user-space regressions in
> certain applications, which relied on the order as it
> was prior to the change (particularly NetworkManager).
> A similar inconsistency occurs when inserting different
> scope addresses, where IPv4 puts link local ones before global
> and IPv6 does the opposite. Attempts were already made
> to unify this also, risking further regressions.
>
> The addition of these tests aims to consolidate current
> behaviour to prevent regressions in the future.
> The expected behaviour is the initial one, where each
> protocol acts differently. The same goes for inter scope
> addresses.
>
> Conversations detailing the decision processes for creating
> these tests are linked below.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260521135310.GC977@cmadams.net/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260529112357.5079-1-fmancera@suse.de/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260721090114.GA2510713@shredder/
> Suggested-by: Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Jabůrek <martin.jaburek@suse.com>
The comments are a bit verbose IMHO but given that this already caused
confusion it is likely to have it well documented on the tests.
Reviewed-by: Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-17 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-14 6:58 [PATCH net-next v3] selftests: net: add IPv4 and IPv6 address order check Martin Jabůrek
2026-09-17 11:02 ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera [this message]
2026-09-17 13:40 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=af33b16c-fe84-4319-a17c-3880fb6c8ca5@suse.de \
--to=fmancera@suse.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.jaburek@suse.com \
--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