[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aXyV028imsUPWSyq@krikkit>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 12:28:19 +0100
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Chiachang Wang <chiachangwang@...gle.com>,
Yan Yan <evitayan@...gle.com>, devel@...ux-ipsec.org,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v5 3/8] xfrm: allow migration from UDP
encapsulated to non-encapsulated ESP
2026-01-27, 11:42:40 +0100, Antony Antony wrote:
> The current code prevents migrating an SA from UDP encapsulation to
> plain ESP. This is needed when moving from a NATed path to a non-NATed
> one, for example when switching from IPv4+NAT to IPv6.
>
> Only copy the existing encapsulation during migration if the encap
> attribute is explicitly provided.
Are we sure nobody out there relies on this behavior (silently copying
the existing UDP encap without having to explicitly request it in the
MIGRATE request)? If there are, this patch would break their setup by
clearing the encap that they expect to still be present.
--
Sabrina
Powered by blists - more mailing lists