Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:18:02 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, joseph.salisbury@canonical.com,
        edumazet@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, willemb@google.com,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
        linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, john.fastabend@gmail.com, me@tobin.cc,
        idosch@mellanox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        1715609@bugs.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][4.13.y][4.14.y][v4.15.y] net: reduce
 skb_warn_bad_offload() noise
Message-ID: <20171212211802.GC9919@kroah.com>
References: <CAF=yD-L_S312Ryyg5fE3p6kqFus4SKQcgL2zXKiofq-ohiK7bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171211214457.GA28858@kroah.com>
 <CAF=yD-K5EmFr5z2xjmCZCqdprqQ5vmfxV3od9xBnxBQhY+_qgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171212.091011.185992457624793318.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171212.091011.185992457624793318.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1602
Lines: 35

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:10:11AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:56:56 -0500
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:25:26PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >>> Note that UFO was removed in 4.14 and that skb_warn_bad_offload
> >>> can happen for various types of packets, so there may be multiple
> >>> independent bug reports. I'm investigating two other non-UFO reports
> >>> just now.
> >>
> >> Meta-comment, now that UFO is gone from mainline, I'm wondering if I
> >> should just delete it from 4.4 and 4.9 as well.  Any objections for
> >> that?  I'd like to make it easy to maintain these kernels for a while,
> >> and having them diverge like this, with all of the issues around UFO,
> >> seems like it will just make life harder for myself if I leave it in.
> >>
> >> Any opinions?
> > 
> > Some of that removal had to be reverted with commit 0c19f846d582
> > ("net: accept UFO datagrams from tuntap and packet") for VM live
> > migration between kernels.
> > 
> > Any backports probably should squash that in at the least. Just today
> > another thread discussed that that patch may not address all open
> > issues still, so it may be premature to backport at this point.
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<d71df64e-e65f-4db4-6f2e-c002c15fcbe4@01019freenet.de>
> 
> I would probably discourage backporting the UFO removal, at least for
> now.

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I'll ask again in 6 months or so :)

greg k-h