On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 12:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > Hello, > > 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let > > > > > > me know. > > > > > I would be careful about this. It causes regressions when sending > > > > > PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to veth devices. > > > > > > > > > > There was a proposed upstream fix for the regression, but it has not > > > > > gone > > > > > into the tree as far as I know. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg370436.html > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > OK, I'll drop this for now. > > > The fall out from not having this patch is in my opinion a bigger > > > fallout than not having this patch. This patch fixes silent data > > > corruption vs. the problem Ben Greear is talking about, which might not > > > be that a common usage. > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > > > Bye, > > > Hannes > > > > > This patch from Cong Wang seems to fix the regression for me, I think it > > should be added and > > tested in the main tree, and then apply them to stable as a pair. > > > > http://dmz2.candelatech.com/?p=linux-4.4.dev.y/.git;a=commitdiff;h=8153e983c0e5eba1aafe1fc296248ed2a553f1ac;hp=454b07405d694dad52e7f41af5816eed0190da8a > Actually, no, this is not really a regression. [...]
It really is. Even though the old behaviour was a bug (raw packets should not be changed), if there are real applications that depend on that then we have to keep those applications working somehow. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
