Hi,
could you, please, include commit b4a11b2033b7 ("net: fix
IPSTATS_MIB_OUTPKGS increment in OutForwDatagrams") from Linus' tree
into the 6.6 stable tree (only)?
Reported-by: Vitezslav Samel <vitezslav@xxxxxxxx>
Fixes: e4da8c78973c ("net: ipv4, ipv6: fix IPSTATS_MIB_OUTOCTETS increment duplicated")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZauRBl7zXWQRVZnl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Tested-by: Vitezslav Samel <vitezslav@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Vita
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:20:58 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/25/24 8:08 AM, Vitezslav Samel wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:47:40 +0100, Vitezslav Samel wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 17:46:52 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:37:11 +0800 heng guo wrote:
> >>>>>> Heng Guo, David, any thoughts on this? Revert?
> >>>>> Revert is best; Heng Guo can revisit the math and try again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The patch in question basically negated IPSTATS_MIB_OUTOCTETS; I see it
> >>>>> shown in proc but never bumped in the datapath.
> >>>> [HG]: Yes please revert it. I verified the patch on ipv4, seems I should
> >>>> not touch the codes to ipv6. Sorry for it.
> >>>
> >>> Would you mind sending a patch with a revert, explaining the situation,
> >>> the right Fixes tag and a link to Vitezslav's report?
> >>
> >> I took a look at current master and found that there is yet another
> >> commit since 6.6.x which touches this area: commit b4a11b2033b7 by Heng Guo
> >> ("net: fix IPSTATS_MIB_OUTPKGS increment in OutForwDatagrams"). It went
> >> in v6.7-rc1.
> >>
> >> I will test current master this afternoon and report back.
> >
> > Test 1: Linus' current master: IPv6 octets accounting is OK
> > Test 2: 6.6.13 with b4a11b2033b7 ("net: fix IPSTATS_MIB_OUTPKGS
> > increment in OutForwDatagrams") on top is also OK.
> >
> > Seems like my problem was solved in master already, but
> > it still exists in 6.6.y. IMHO commit b4a11b2033b7 should be
> > marked as for-stable-6.6.y and forwarded to GregKH. AFAIK only 6.6.y
> > stable tree is affected.
> >
> > But beware: I only tested my specific problem and I don't know if the
> > commit with fix doesn't break anything else.
>
> Only reported problem, so with b4a11b2033b7 backported to stable we
> should be good. Thanks for the testing of various releases to isolate
> the problem.
