[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33c7f9b3-aec6-6327-53b3-3b54f74ddcf6@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:53:42 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, sashal@...nel.org,
mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com
Subject: Re: Why revert commit 2271c95 ("vrf: mark skb for multicast or
link-local as enslaved to VRF")?
On 10/18/20 10:06 AM, Stephen Suryaputra wrote:
> $ git --no-pager show afed1a4
>
> commit afed1a4dbb76c81900f10fd77397fb91ad442702
> Author: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> Date: Mon Mar 23 16:21:31 2020 -0400
>
> Revert "vrf: mark skb for multicast or link-local as enslaved to VRF"
>
> This reverts commit 2271c9500434af2a26b2c9eadeb3c0b075409fb5.
>
> This patch shouldn't have been backported to 4.14.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>
My response last November was:
'backporting this patch and it's bug fix, "ipv6: Fix handling of LLA
with VRF and sockets bound to VRF" to 4.14 is a bit questionable. They
definitely do not need to come back to 4.9.'
Basically, my point is that this is work that was committed to 4.19-next
I believe and given the state of the VRF feature over the releases, I
could not confirm for 4.14 that everything works as intended. Hence, the
comment about it being questionable.
If you / your company are actively using and testing VRF on 4.14 and can
confirm it works, then I am fine with the patch (and its bugfix) getting
applied.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists