From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B92C433F5 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241510AbiBNLZB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 06:25:01 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:52114 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1351289AbiBNLYB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 06:24:01 -0500 Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6015E6A00A for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 03:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.214] (dynamic-089-014-252-000.89.14.pool.telefonica.de [89.14.252.0]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AF9B20B96F0 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 03:00:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 6AF9B20B96F0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1644836407; bh=LzQUiSc5Q+jJWlC0npjLvm4wYgqY7ldnlwETjOHKEr0=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=kOzN0uGTjUuvYDUlEkHVdCmFmh6Tb1/LjSTmXI/XZetqcloiyS4rm4DnkhK9X6Ago 4Z01dvo2URzVvDyTd1n8IjTWSvDP5pBe7lESzwx+jSpAgX2tKAOuWRQGUR33J3bzyo i8nHS2LO1gpde5wnKUcVhI9l7HpuLchrm0bgdBeQ= To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: =?UTF-8?B?S2FpIEzDvGtl?= Subject: xfrm regression in 5.10.94 Message-ID: <874b6461-07a7-1eeb-4e97-54d1be1c27fe@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, in 5.10.94 these two xfrm changes cause userspace programs like Cilium to suddenly fail (https://github.com/cilium/cilium/pull/18789): - xfrm: interface with if_id 0 should return error   8dce43919566f06e865f7e8949f5c10d8c2493f5 - xfrm: state and policy should fail if XFRMA_IF_ID 0   68ac0f3810e76a853b5f7b90601a05c3048b8b54 I see that these changes are a reaction to - xfrm: fix disable_xfrm sysctl when used on xfrm interfaces   9f8550e4bd9d but even if the "wrong" usage caused weired behavior I still wonder if it was the right decision to do the changes as part of a bugfix update for an LTS kernel. What do you think about reverting the changes at least for 5.10? Regards, Kai