From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:38460 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbcEMSV1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2016 14:21:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20160513.142121.1201664846732017162.davem@davemloft.net> To: greearb@candelatech.com Cc: w@1wt.eu, vijayp@vijayp.ca, tom@herbertland.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, sd@queasysnail.net, hannes@stressinduktion.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cwang@twopensource.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ej@evanjones.ca, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, phil@nwl.cc, makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don???t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good. From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <5736076F.10003@candelatech.com> References: <57253527.7010009@candelatech.com> <20160501053059.GA26097@1wt.eu> <5736076F.10003@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ben Greear Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:57:19 -0700 > How do you feel about a new socket-option to allow a socket to > request the old veth behaviour? I depend upon the opinions of the experts who work upstream on and maintain these components, since it is an area I am not so familiar with. Generally speaking asking me directly for opinions on matters like this isn't the way to go, in fact I kind of find it irritating. It can't all be on me.