On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 11:59 PM Jakub Kicinski kuba@kernel.org 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