2024-05-06, 17:57:23 +0200, Antony Antony wrote:
> Hi Sabrina,
>
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 03:36:15PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca via Devel wrote:
> > 2024-05-06, 09:58:26 +0200, Antony Antony wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > This fix, originally intended for XFRM/IPsec, has been recommended by
> > > Steffen Klassert to submit to the net tree.
> > >
> > > The patch addresses a minor issue related to the IPv4 source address of
> > > ICMP error messages, which originated from an old 2011 commit:
> > >
> > > 415b3334a21a ("icmp: Fix regression in nexthop resolution during
> > > replies.")
> > >
> > > The omission of a "Fixes" tag in the following commit is deliberate
> > > to prevent potential test failures and subsequent regression issues
> > > that may arise from backporting this patch all stable kerenels.
> >
> > What kind of regression do you expect? If there's a risk of
>
> For example, an old testing scripts with hardcoded source IP address assume
> that the "Unreachable response" will have the previous behavior. Such
> testing script may trigger regression when this patch is backported.
> Consequently, there may be discussions on whether this patch has broken the
> 10-year-old test scripts, which may be hard to fix.
Ok, that seems like an acceptable level of "regression" to me. Thanks
for explaining.
> > regression, I'm not sure net-next is that much "better" than net or
> > stable. If a user complains about the new behavior breaking their
> > setup, my understanding is that you would likely have to revert the
> > patch anyway, or at least add some way to toggle the behavior.
>
> My hope is that if this patch is applied to net-next without a "Fixes" tag,
> users would fix their testing scripts properly.
I don't think the lack of a fixes tag will make people fix broken test
scripts, but maybe I'm too pessimistic.
--
Sabrina
