On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:10:11AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:56:56 -0500
>
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:25:26PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>> Note that UFO was removed in 4.14 and that skb_warn_bad_offload
> >>> can happen for various types of packets, so there may be multiple
> >>> independent bug reports. I'm investigating two other non-UFO reports
> >>> just now.
> >>
> >> Meta-comment, now that UFO is gone from mainline, I'm wondering if I
> >> should just delete it from 4.4 and 4.9 as well. Any objections for
> >> that? I'd like to make it easy to maintain these kernels for a while,
> >> and having them diverge like this, with all of the issues around UFO,
> >> seems like it will just make life harder for myself if I leave it in.
> >>
> >> Any opinions?
> >
> > Some of that removal had to be reverted with commit 0c19f846d582
> > ("net: accept UFO datagrams from tuntap and packet") for VM live
> > migration between kernels.
> >
> > Any backports probably should squash that in at the least. Just today
> > another thread discussed that that patch may not address all open
> > issues still, so it may be premature to backport at this point.
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<d71df64e-e65f-4db4-6f2e-c002c15fcbe4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I would probably discourage backporting the UFO removal, at least for
> now.
Ok, thanks for letting me know, I'll ask again in 6 months or so :)
greg k-h