From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=94.136.29.106 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792754111; b=5Ffm/A4VLzDdrdcL97or0pWjuguAJDd7Iw6HaYWoJPzLZ6CYiAlN43NKDDJ9fc+LLVmY G2Wq44QO5IaKJjqKO2HoTYA7S95v763J+SihnhKYN5LkNbvgQPHBoPOJGbvHNY9vayNgN WQj4to8PgMh/Di6d3vY3GAKkPOzL07aOcdDWx7LYD0MEPDGgl9ieArdoPPC1u2QrfqPvk KOjdbsGPPnND25d4Gl4b+JkN3Ti3VSzIplyk7MrtlaCRv7BQddsH+h/A8b7YbQU6CD8oO nJqxQuOBwgxHq40VTSbQCfguHrhpA3CUrsBlUECalFjRvZ8q6v/4G5Pez6qKTrxhn3w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792754111; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent: X-Bm-Milter-Handled:X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp; bh=Ouveq7mGrLRQ0ofHONc5foFtoIgS8hdqXITyl83nHFY=; b=RUmOwDK6zgnOssGZnV5M7q4b99K6tRpp+jXqDXoBHqtz7DilK5g+c2gPDjsiBvOBE4/B jtx9yu7Lxz3FH9nSIQDw2bwQK+Wqwgjvrztvh2mXzcccZjZSWvue5P7j9rdTEolGlypXz R4ZfDSTNL0iVF7Lg7fNjkMsnbvtyldpH3Q1KKDpEmbDC5AkRL9D/1mQjzBO60V49vlxXy UA+BRmQl13bSbYA7VSoNNcKt85+VBhhE8LubQMisH3agX8CI0i8ltyt/j5iAThVJ5K/95 oxodIOAFsUdYDfiuZErx3MY0Od+4GuLxe/s/gGDnoHKdyu+Kv2Wtj7zu0eTKrdAXMBw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none header.from=proxmox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proxmox.com; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=94.136.29.106 Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1F8606A31B; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 11:15:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 3B1F8606A31B Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=proxmox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proxmox.com Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A38745F36; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:15:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 13:15:01 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org Cc: David Ahern , Ido Schimmel , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Nicolas Dichtel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Add NETCONFA_FORCE_FORWARDING to netconf messages Message-ID: References: <20261023-ipv6_add_netconfa-v1-1-94d14b07d621@proxmox.com> <179275358416.3327.10205293492560698598@kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <179275358416.3327.10205293492560698598@kernel.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20260504 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792754102918 On 23.10.2026 11:06, netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org wrote: > Hi! > > This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its > commit messages seem to be missing some information: > > - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during > development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static > analysis tool scan. Hit during development of ifupdown2. > - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical > (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include > the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages. Can actually be triggered. Check with `ip montor netconf` running and execute e.g. `sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf..force_forwarding=1`. The state of the force_forwarding property is not returned > Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead, > reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers > can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for > other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages > then. > > The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think > that is the case please reply and explain.