On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 11:59 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 23:33:39 +0200 Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
> > 1 meta question: as this is a fix and will thus be backported into
> > 5.4+ LTS, should this be split into two patches? Either making the
> > test a follow up, or even going with only the crash fix in patch 1 and
> > putting the 4-in-4 and 6-in-6 behavioural change in patch 2? We'd end
> > up in the same state at tip of tree... but it would affect the LTS
> > backports. Honestly I'm not even sure what's best.
>
> :) Did we go from wondering if we can strip dst unconditionally to
> wondering if stripping it on encap/decap may introduce regressions?
Yeah, well I have utterly enough regression chasing in my day job.
Just spent two days chasing this fun one.
enum bpf_cmd {
BPF_MAP_CREATE,
...
BPF_PROG_DETACH,
BPF_GET_COMM_HASH, <--- added
BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN,
...
BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD,
};
> I suppose it may be useful to split, just to make it clear which
> portion of the change is the crash fix and which one is just because
> we think it's more consistent.
Your call.
> --
> pw-bot: cr
--
Maciej Żenczykowski, Kernel Networking Developer @ Google
