Hi David, On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:15:37PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:09:39 +0100 > > > What puzzles me about your argumentation is that you seem to propose for > > the kernel to cover up flaws in userspace. Spinning this concept further > > would mean that if there would be an old bug in iproute2 we should think > > of adding a workaround to rtnetlink interface in kernel because > > containers will keep the old iproute2 binary? Or am I (hopefully) just > > missing your point? > > I'll answer this with a question. I tried to remove UFO entirely from > the kernel, did you see how that went? :) I didn't follow back then, but found mails about KVM live migration breakage when moving to a kernel without UFO. But isn't that a problem with how virtio_net optimizes things? Florian recently told me how iptables CHECKSUM target was mainly introduced to overcome a different problem in the same area. So all this is kernel covering up for kernel problems. My question was about covering up for userspace bugs in kernelspace. If you think that is preferable over fixing userspace, I have to put that in consideration when dealing with userspace issues. Cheers, Phil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
