From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E013C433F5 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236998AbiCATjM (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2022 14:39:12 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33198 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236991AbiCATjL (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2022 14:39:11 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D1C26548D for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:38:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4453B81CF8 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:38:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9070C340EF; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:38:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1646163505; bh=chohtoLcvrik+AzmJc/xGeOgYWd7+DzT6bAFHrzKJaU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dTuuf6gcEFRr0N5CG1O+x7TRRF5wABVAboiy7WsBTJHZNEomdD4Di7zFDWDP9kUZG BvciTxmxse1UsZ1sCiIlzE6BCHhk7/Ta0zCVOoam9WOFf+/CSIygWTQZJapAIEfx+5 Efs0//h0k6d77ICn98PWNelDnhl4qxCnDotvYbHY= Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:38:21 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Kai Lueke Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: xfrm regression in 5.10.94 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org 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