> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2023 10:14
> To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Sriram Yagnaraman <sriram.yagnaraman@xxxxxxxx>; Florian Westphal
> <fw@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] Netfilter fixes for net: manual merge
>
> Hello,
>
> On 24/01/2023 19:39, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The following patchset contains Netfilter fixes for net:
>
> (...)
>
> > Sriram Yagnaraman (4):
> > netfilter: conntrack: fix vtag checks for ABORT/SHUTDOWN_COMPLETE
> > netfilter: conntrack: fix bug in for_each_sctp_chunk
> > Revert "netfilter: conntrack: add sctp DATA_SENT state"
> > netfilter: conntrack: unify established states for SCTP paths
>
> FYI, we got a small conflict when merging -net in net-next in the MPTCP tree
> due to the last two patches applied in -net:
>
> 13bd9b31a969 ("Revert "netfilter: conntrack: add sctp DATA_SENT state"")
> a44b7651489f ("netfilter: conntrack: unify established states for SCTP
> paths")
>
> and this one from net-next:
>
> f71cb8f45d09 ("netfilter: conntrack: sctp: use nf log infrastructure for invalid
> packets")
Ah, that's my bad. I should have pushed to nf-next/net-next instead.
Maintainers: I am not fully aware of what needs to be done in this case, please advise.
>
> The conflict has been resolved on our side[1] and the resolution we suggest is
> attached to this email.
The attached patch looks fine to me.
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> [1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/4e2bc066dae4
> --
> Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions www.tessares.net
