public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kai Lüke" <kailueke@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Paul Chaignon <paul@cilium.io>, Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error"
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 16:48:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dcc83e93-4a28-896c-b3d3-8d675bb705eb@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220301150930.GA56710@Mem>

> I agree with Eyal here.  As far as Cilium is concerned, this is not
> causing any regression.  Only the second commit, 68ac0f3810e7 ("xfrm:
> state and policy should fail if XFRMA_IF_ID 0") causes issues in a
> previously-working setup in Cilium.  We don't use xfrm interfaces.
>
I see this as a very generic question of changing userspace behavior or
not, regardless if we know how many users are affected, and from what I
know there are similar cases in the kernel where the response was that
breaking userspace is a no go - even if the intention was to be helpful
by having early errors.

Greets,
Kai



  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-01 15:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-01 13:15 [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error" kailueke
2022-03-01 13:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "xfrm: state and policy should fail if XFRMA_IF_ID 0" kailueke
2022-03-01 13:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] Revert "xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error" Eyal Birger
2022-03-01 14:17   ` Kai Lüke
2022-03-01 14:34     ` Eyal Birger
2022-03-01 15:09       ` Paul Chaignon
2022-03-01 15:48         ` Kai Lüke [this message]
2022-03-01 16:10           ` Steffen Klassert
2022-03-01 16:44             ` Kai Lueke
2022-03-02  9:27               ` Nicolas Dichtel
2022-03-02 16:04             ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-02 18:11               ` Kai Lueke
2022-03-03  5:33                 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-03  7:54                   ` Steffen Klassert
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-02-28 18:55 Kai Lüke
2022-02-28 18:51 Kai Lüke
2022-02-28 18:49 Kai Lüke

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=dcc83e93-4a28-896c-b3d3-8d675bb705eb@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=kailueke@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=eyal.birger@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@cilium.io \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.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