Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1215198 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception

Started byMartin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
First post2015-08-28 09:40 +0200
Last post2015-08-28 20:30 +0200
Articles 4 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route  after encountering pmtu exception Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> - 2015-08-28 09:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after  encountering pmtu exception Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> - 2015-08-28 11:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after  encountering pmtu exception Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> - 2015-08-28 11:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route  after encountering pmtu exception David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2015-08-28 20:30 +0200

#1215198 — Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception

FromMartin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Date2015-08-28 09:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception
Message-ID<q2mqv-51a-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:43:20AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> That's why I vote to check out if it's possible/reasonable to backport this
> series to the stable kernels.
I have backported to 4.0.y without major issue, so possible.

I did try on 3.1x and gave up.

It is a lot of changes,  so I don't think it is a good idea for -stable.

Thanks,
Martin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1215239 — Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception

FromAlexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
Date2015-08-28 11:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception
Message-ID<q2o8W-7z5-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1215198
Am 28.08.2015 um 09:36 schrieb Martin KaFai Lau:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:43:20AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> That's why I vote to check out if it's possible/reasonable to backport this
>> series to the stable kernels.
> I have backported to 4.0.y without major issue, so possible.

Sure, as this was likely one of the versions they've used to create the 
patch.

> I did try on 3.1x and gave up.
>
> It is a lot of changes,  so I don't think it is a good idea for -stable.

Depends on what you're expecting from a (stable) kernel.

The patch description mentions what happens when a system deals with a 
lot of other ipv6-systems and that problem is easy to exercise and to value.

Rating the information leak is harder, some people even won't understand 
that this might be a problem.

And now look at which kernel-versions are now used in new devices 
(likely something <= 3.10, which is more than two years old), how long 
they will be used, and make a guess about IPv6 usage in 5 years.

Anyway, I've no insights about all the politics happening in the 
background (e.g. stuff like the LTSI tree) and I've just wanted raise 
awareness about that (imho important) patch series.

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1215242 — Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception

FromAlexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
Date2015-08-28 11:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v5 00/11] ipv6: Only create RTF_CACHE route after encountering pmtu exception
Message-ID<q2oiB-7Kl-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1215239
Am 28.08.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 28.08.2015 um 09:36 schrieb Martin KaFai Lau:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:43:20AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> That's why I vote to check out if it's possible/reasonable to
>>> backport this
>>> series to the stable kernels.
>> I have backported to 4.0.y without major issue, so possible.
>
> Sure, as this was likely one of the versions they've used to create the
> patch.
>
>> I did try on 3.1x and gave up.
>>
>> It is a lot of changes,  so I don't think it is a good idea for -stable.
>
> Depends on what you're expecting from a (stable) kernel.
>
> The patch description mentions what happens when a system deals with a
> lot of other ipv6-systems and that problem is easy to exercise and to
> value.
>
> Rating the information leak is harder, some people even won't understand
> that this might be a problem.
>
> And now look at which kernel-versions are now used in new devices
> (likely something <= 3.10, which is more than two years old), how long
> they will be used, and make a guess about IPv6 usage in 5 years.
>
> Anyway, I've no insights about all the politics happening in the
> background (e.g. stuff like the LTSI tree) and I've just wanted raise
> awareness about that (imho important) patch series.

Not to speak about phones, but those are most likely a problem of one 
specific company  ;)

Regards,

Alexander Holler
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1215511

FromDavid Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date2015-08-28 20:30 +0200
Message-ID<q2wzx-2Pm-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1215198
From: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:36:38 -0700

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:43:20AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> That's why I vote to check out if it's possible/reasonable to backport this
>> series to the stable kernels.
> I have backported to 4.0.y without major issue, so possible.
> 
> I did try on 3.1x and gave up.
> 
> It is a lot of changes,  so I don't think it is a good idea for -stable.

I am absolutely, firmly, against any of this work going into -stable.

It is completely inappropriate, the potential for regressions is
enormous.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web