According to Guillaume Nault RT_TOS should never be used for IPv6.
Quote:
RT_TOS() is an old macro used to interprete IPv4 TOS as described in
the obsolete RFC 1349. It's conceptually wrong to use it even in IPv4
code, although, given the current state of the code, most of the
existing calls have no consequence.
But using RT_TOS() in IPv6 code is always a bug: IPv6 never had a "TOS"
field to be interpreted the RFC 1349 way. There's no historical
compatibility to worry about.
---
v1 -> v2:
- Fix spacing of "Fixes" tag.
- Add missing CCs
Matthias May (4):
geneve: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
vxlan: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
mlx5: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
ipv6: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/tc_tun.c | 4 ++--
drivers/net/geneve.c | 3 +--
drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_core.c | 2 +-
net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 3 +--
4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--
2.35.1
According to Guillaume Nault RT_TOS should never be used for IPv6.
Fixes: 571912c69f0e ("net: UDP tunnel encapsulation module for tunnelling different protocols like MPLS, IP, NSH etc.")
Signed-off-by: Matthias May <[email protected]>
---
v1 -> v2:
- Fix spacing of "Fixes" tag.
- Add missing CCs
---
net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
index 77e3f5970ce4..ec62f472aa1c 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_output.c
@@ -1311,8 +1311,7 @@ struct dst_entry *ip6_dst_lookup_tunnel(struct sk_buff *skb,
fl6.daddr = info->key.u.ipv6.dst;
fl6.saddr = info->key.u.ipv6.src;
prio = info->key.tos;
- fl6.flowlabel = ip6_make_flowinfo(RT_TOS(prio),
- info->key.label);
+ fl6.flowlabel = ip6_make_flowinfo(prio, info->key.label);
dst = ipv6_stub->ipv6_dst_lookup_flow(net, sock->sk, &fl6,
NULL);
--
2.35.1
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 02:09:31PM +0200, Matthias May wrote:
> According to Guillaume Nault RT_TOS should never be used for IPv6.
>
> Quote:
> RT_TOS() is an old macro used to interprete IPv4 TOS as described in
> the obsolete RFC 1349. It's conceptually wrong to use it even in IPv4
> code, although, given the current state of the code, most of the
> existing calls have no consequence.
>
> But using RT_TOS() in IPv6 code is always a bug: IPv6 never had a "TOS"
> field to be interpreted the RFC 1349 way. There's no historical
> compatibility to worry about.
Apart from the not so informative commit messages, I'm fine with this
series. Please keep my acked-by on all patches if you send a v3.
Thanks again for fixing this.
Acked-by: Guillaume Nault <[email protected]>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - Fix spacing of "Fixes" tag.
> - Add missing CCs
>
> Matthias May (4):
> geneve: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
> vxlan: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
> mlx5: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
> ipv6: do not use RT_TOS for IPv6 flowlabel
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/tc_tun.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/net/geneve.c | 3 +--
> drivers/net/vxlan/vxlan_core.c | 2 +-
> net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 3 +--
> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.35.1
>
On 8/2/22 6:09 AM, Matthias May wrote:
> According to Guillaume Nault RT_TOS should never be used for IPv6.
>
> Fixes: 571912c69f0e ("net: UDP tunnel encapsulation module for tunnelling different protocols like MPLS, IP, NSH etc.")
> Signed-off-by: Matthias May <[email protected]>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - Fix spacing of "Fixes" tag.
> - Add missing CCs
> ---
> net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>