On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:50 AM Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:39:08 +0100
> Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Tunnel encapsulation fixes:
> >
> > 094-v4.12-0001-ip6_tunnel-Fix-missing-tunnel-encapsulation-limit-op.patch
> > 094-v4.12-0002-ipv6-Need-to-export-ipv6_push_frag_opts-for-tunnelin.patch
> > Upstream commits
> > 89a23c8b528bd2c89f3981573d6cd7d23840c8a6
> > "ip6_tunnel: Fix missing tunnel encapsulation limit option"
> > 5b8481fa42ac58484d633b558579e302aead64c1
> > "ipv6: Need to export ipv6_push_frag_opts for tunneling now."
>
> These are needed to get the IPv6 Tunnel Encapsulation Limit option (RFC
> 2473) actually sent in packets. As a side effect, FoU and GUE IPv6
> tunnels wouldn't work anymore unless you include...
>
> > Which then seems to be further fixed in
> > commit d4d576f5ab7edcb757bb33e6a5600666a0b1232d
> > "ip6_tunnel: Fix encapsulation layout"
>
> this one. But, for those tunnels to work, commit 84dad55951b0 ("udp6:
> fix encap return code for resubmitting") is also needed.
>
> I think making sure all those four commits are there would be the safest
> option.
You're certainly right.
Sadly some of the cherry-picks yield nontrivial conflicts so
without proper domain knowledge I should simply stay off this
tunneling business. I could use OpenWrts backport for the first
two commits but then I'm kind of lost.
If we want this for stable v4.9 it'd better be someone who knows
what they are doing backporting it.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
