Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753878AbcD1AAI (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:00:08 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:42974 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752310AbcD1AAE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:00:04 -0400 Message-Id: <1461801603.3971874.591751457.2DB91B98@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: KDVuvbK5cAGOFiJ7Ctz5oLDKUgVyUaihOtMwfr6Xvhz3 1461801603 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Ben Hutchings , Ben Greear , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , Vijay Pandurangan , Cong Wang , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Evan Jones , Nicolas Dichtel , Phil Sutter , Toshiaki Makita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-f1265324 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A=20=5BPATCH=203=2E2=20085?= =?UTF-8?Q?/115=5D=20veth=3A=20don=E2=80=99t=20?= =?UTF-8?Q?modify=20ip=5Fsummed=3B=20?= =?UTF-8?Q?doing=20so=20treats=20pa?= =?UTF-8?Q?ckets=20with=20bad=20che?= =?UTF-8?Q?cksums=20as=20good=2E?= Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:00:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1461780469.5102.0.camel@decadent.org.uk> References: <5720E1F0.9010203@candelatech.com> <1461780469.5102.0.camel@decadent.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 873 Lines: 27 Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > I would be careful about this.  It causes regressions when sending > > PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to veth devices. > > > > There was a proposed upstream fix for the regression, but it has not gone > > into the tree as far as I know. > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg370436.html > [...] > > OK, I'll drop this for now. The fall out from not having this patch is in my opinion a bigger fallout than not having this patch. This patch fixes silent data corruption vs. the problem Ben Greear is talking about, which might not be that a common usage. What do others think? Bye, Hannes