Thank you Peter! I tried the patch on 4.9.167 & 4.19.32. It's out of sync with upstream. Looks like a little different work needed for each LTS kernel. Is someone is familiar with it, and is available to patch it? If not, I'd be happy to do this and propose a patch for at least 4.9, 4.14, 4.19. I look forward to your feedback. ----- patch against 4.9.167: include/net/inet_frag.h: 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c: 4 out of 9 hunks FAILED can't find file to patch at input line 796: Not found: include/net/ipv6_frag.h ----- patch against 4.19.32: net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c: 3 out of 9 hunks FAILED net/ipv6/reassembly.c: 2 out of 8 hunks FAILED can't find file to patch: tools/testing/selftests/net/ip_defrag.c --John Masinter On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:59 AM Peter Oskolkov <posk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:49:52AM -0600, Captain Wiggum wrote: > > >Hi Sasha, > > > > > >This patch cannot be applied to upstream, the code is significantly different. > > >Therefore, this un-do patch would not be seen in the upstream git log. > > >It was solved there by coding a better solution, not by the un-do patch. > > > > Okay, so this is effectively a request to diverge the -stable tree from > > upstream in a non-trivial way, which is why I asked David Miller to ack > > this act explcitly (or to send me patches, or whatever else he thinks is > > appropriate here). > > I believe that applying this patch series: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1029418/ > from upstream will achieve the desired outcome (assuming it applies cleanly). > > > > > >Please consider this: > > >Upstream passes the TAHI IPv6 protocol tests. All the LTS kernels do NOT. > > >This is the patch that causes the failure in 4.9, 4.14, 4.19 LTS kernels. > > > > I very much agree that this should get fixed. My concerns are not with > > the bug but are with the proposed fix as it applies to -stable trees. > > > > >And this patch has been in place with 4.9.134, a long time. > > >It is not right that "Linux" can not pass the IPv6 protocol test. > > >My executive are asking me why "Linux" is not fit for IPv6 deployments. > > > > Arguments such as this carry no weight in a more technical discussion > > such as this. Yes, some tests are currently broken, but we will not take > > shortcuts just because "executives are unhappy". > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Sasha
