Re: xfrm regression in 5.10.94

Greg KH
2022-03-01T19:38:32Z

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Kai Lueke wrote:
> Hi,
> > Why is 5.10 special and newer kernels are not? This change shows up for
> > them, right? Either this is a regression for all kernel releases and
> > needs to be resolved, or it is ok for any kernel release.
> >
> > Please work with the networking developers to either resolve the
> > regression of determine what needs to be done here for userspace to work
> > properly.
>
> I agree, thanks. I tried it
> (https://marc.info/?t=164607426900002&r=1&w=2) and got this response
> from Steffen Klassert now:
>
> > In general I agree that the userspace ABI has to be stable, but
> > this never worked. We changed the behaviour from silently broken to
> > notify userspace about a misconfiguration.
> >
> > It is the question what is more annoying for the users. A bug that
> > we can never fix, or changing a broken behaviour to something that
> > tells you at least why it is not working.
> >
> > In such a case we should gauge what's the better solution. Here
> > I tend to keep it as it is.
> (https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=164615098503579&w=2)
>
> Given it's unlikely to have this reverted in general I personally think
> that reverting for the LTS kernels makes sense at least...

Again, there is nothing "special" about LTS kernels for stuff like this.
It's fixing a bug that the kernel developers wanted to have fixed, and
so it gets backported everywhere relevant.

If I were to somehow "wait" on taking this, it's only delaying your
fixes from ever happening :)

thanks,

greg k-h