On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:50 AM Stefano Brivio sbrivio@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Linus,
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:39:08 +0100 Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org wrote:
Tunnel encapsulation fixes:
094-v4.12-0001-ip6_tunnel-Fix-missing-tunnel-encapsulation-limit-op.patch 094-v4.12-0002-ipv6-Need-to-export-ipv6_push_frag_opts-for-tunnelin.patch Upstream commits 89a23c8b528bd2c89f3981573d6cd7d23840c8a6 "ip6_tunnel: Fix missing tunnel encapsulation limit option" 5b8481fa42ac58484d633b558579e302aead64c1 "ipv6: Need to export ipv6_push_frag_opts for tunneling now."
These are needed to get the IPv6 Tunnel Encapsulation Limit option (RFC 2473) actually sent in packets. As a side effect, FoU and GUE IPv6 tunnels wouldn't work anymore unless you include...
Which then seems to be further fixed in commit d4d576f5ab7edcb757bb33e6a5600666a0b1232d "ip6_tunnel: Fix encapsulation layout"
this one. But, for those tunnels to work, commit 84dad55951b0 ("udp6: fix encap return code for resubmitting") is also needed.
I think making sure all those four commits are there would be the safest option.
You're certainly right.
Sadly some of the cherry-picks yield nontrivial conflicts so without proper domain knowledge I should simply stay off this tunneling business. I could use OpenWrts backport for the first two commits but then I'm kind of lost.
If we want this for stable v4.9 it'd better be someone who knows what they are doing backporting it.
Yours, Linus Walleij