[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220802120935.1363001-1-matthias.may@westermo.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 14:09:31 +0200
From: Matthias May <matthias.may@...termo.com>
To: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <roopa@...dia.com>,
<eng.alaamohamedsoliman.am@...il.com>, <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
<saeedm@...dia.com>, <leon@...nel.org>, <roid@...dia.com>,
<maord@...dia.com>, <lariel@...dia.com>, <vladbu@...dia.com>,
<cmi@...dia.com>, <gnault@...hat.com>, <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
<dsahern@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
<nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
<jesse@...ira.com>, <linville@...driver.com>,
<daniel@...earbox.net>, <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
<ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, <willemb@...gle.com>,
<martin.varghese@...ia.com>,
Matthias May <matthias.may@...termo.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 net 0/4] Do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
According to Guillaume Nault RT_TOS should never be used for IPv6.
Quote:
RT_TOS() is an old macro used to interprete IPv4 TOS as described in
the obsolete RFC 1349. It's conceptually wrong to use it even in IPv4
code, although, given the current state of the code, most of the
existing calls have no consequence.
But using RT_TOS() in IPv6 code is always a bug: IPv6 never had a "TOS"
field to be interpreted the RFC 1349 way. There's no historical
compatibility to worry about.
---
v1 -> v2:
- Fix spacing of "Fixes" tag.
- Add missing CCs
Matthias May (4):
geneve: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
vxlan: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
mlx5: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
ipv6: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/tc_tun.c | 4 ++--
drivers/net/geneve.c | 3 +--
drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_core.c | 2 +-
net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 3 +--
4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--
2.35.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists