From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailgate02.uberspace.is (mailgate02.uberspace.is [185.26.156.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EF41C54A6 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 17:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.26.156.114 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734369011; cv=none; b=uluDkalZHXoQdxe7AMbIpM9hoCBns8ief5rShcplZdahiADF8c2tKzI1u9dxI5UzFxDrz1FcNqHqKp7SZuT9gAcISwfgYOg76L7hIhiIZnURLznm73lupoWUCG2zy6EJ4uTzV+0GeEHapvyfQi1yOCNFdOK7BpYCOsYBov5/Iv0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734369011; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fmT0hqHpUIBt4uXEP2MiSuL8zgNn4JyVW7RsOYOMM28=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=eIbVhqqkdqItDyYv/ibBAEptJ+ftNi/HDiabA5XmbCScbg+3vdvuPuV7AXtdFKq65qKRSX7ZlJDzG3KXlu3QpiIVUBa6ni9ATnjQFz97jOlFstWca8cMUogF/L4cBHT5EN8Oarfy4r0JgAbOGfd3Ht6eYHJSzKnfe+doKh6MRjE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=florommel.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=florommel.de; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=florommel.de header.i=@florommel.de header.b=aFKLDH/w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.26.156.114 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=florommel.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=florommel.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=florommel.de header.i=@florommel.de header.b="aFKLDH/w" Received: from read.uberspace.de (read.uberspace.de [185.26.156.133]) by mailgate02.uberspace.is (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12EE118144E for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:01:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 28072 invoked by uid 990); 16 Dec 2024 17:01:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: read.uberspace.de; auth=pass (plain) Received: from unknown (HELO unkown) (::1) by read.uberspace.de (Haraka/3.0.1) with ESMTPSA; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:01:29 +0100 From: Florian Rommel To: nils@nilsfuhler.de Cc: davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, mail@florommel.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ip6: ndisc: fix incorrect forwarding of proxied ns packets Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:01:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20241216170129.531313-1-mail@florommel.de> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.1 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Bar: + X-Rspamd-Report: MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1) BAYES_HAM(-0.29483) MIME_GOOD(-0.1) R_MISSING_CHARSET(0.5) X-Rspamd-Score: 1.105169 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=florommel.de; s=uberspace; h=from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=fmT0hqHpUIBt4uXEP2MiSuL8zgNn4JyVW7RsOYOMM28=; b=aFKLDH/wDD9av/WruhUrMnSzFWklHRtU98Nu95babD6k/xTX4pb5enK41Jnhk+OvgM0B14NoCB 5fFzoDhV54s4EfXa7cn9hz/aIF7o3IGiygjXItvPh9QyyIK221uMdIgZVfm+RK6btYLgVau2izMn ZsnccxOfrZzytpGUjqt5bjh3XRq4knYOio2zgyOIHlxVvk7pVnWnNSzTeGGtbYFuZ+FB6D8NoHGl AuxbtVR1yT+TkxAo7oV/7AMJtAtErEMAVnYUvcuQ5KqOCe/2TYe1gtBACAZkxgNK2AgdhUFAFm1e 06LYJ9Nv806Fg0NykPqX1d42hDV9hT44aDVvjY7ncZVisdSJBu1hEgTP38KgRmrXqdghEuOZ6AsF g2iy2lBZo2+z3G+9A96oV7ryvSdKV6szeISAfslCVPvJNN209TTLUeIZDQz6zBTuR1TkCUjyX51l 6PF9nBBJP8tGprbSVKhBIGfHph369rZdiIGumOG44ZLhI99TMvGVGT7zp3I8VvbxZVSmKRWpL9Pc GrC/7gxSfpxhBL677kBYfcjkpALPvxveL8Q6OC/IrP8fvbDf0hX7h/PgDCjH5X2Jy3VFckdk6M80 m5T39UaP5NWVgbB1FVDP9L2PRzaoXo3Tx7HH9YpuQRbE+vDCvIqzGHq1Zlxb/5g9EzqWaYnJxHp7 0= What is the status of this? The proposed fix seems to work. > > I have mixed feeling WRT this patch. It looks like a fix, but it's changing an established behaviour that is there since a lot of time. > > > > I think it could go via the net-next tree, without fixes > > tag to avoid stable backports. As such I guess it deserves a self-test script validating the new behavior. > > > That is probably the best option. > Although I'm not sure whether it would really break something. The > forwarded packets have a hoplimit of 254 and are therefore not valid > ndisc packets anymore. I also can't imagine that anything depends on invalid packets being created?