(Resend as plaintext. Forgot to check gmail plain-text setting) > There was no need to resend this without changes. I still had this > patchset in my queue.
Ahh, my apologies. I will keep that in mind for next time. > I'm ok with the change, but you did not Cc > all the authors of the patch you want to fix. So please resend once > again with Cc to all the authors, so that they have a chance to > review this change. Can do. I'll resend with all of the people listed in the co-developed commit lines of 9b42c1f179a6 On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 2:02 AM Steffen Klassert <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:14:11PM -0800, Benedict Wong wrote: > > A behavior change introduced in 9b42c1f179a6 (“xfrm: Extend the > > output_mark to support input direction and masking”) results in a > > change in: > > > > 1. Default outbound behavior with regards to route lookup marks, and > > 2. Inbound behavior for SAs used to decapsulate packets when the output > > mark (as specified in 4.14 to 4.18) is set. > > > > This patch set restores the previous default outbound behavior, > > resolving (1), but behavior change (2) will require more discussion. > > > > Specifically, in (2), a SA with a "output mark" set will now have that > > Mark imposed on the inbound packet (As opposed to the previous > > output-mark behavior where the inbound packet's mark would not be > > touched). This is less of a concern, as it is limited to the case where: > > > > 1. SA output mark is set > > 2. SA is using non-transport mode > > 3. SA is configured for inbound decapsulation (local dst IP) > > > > Critically, conditions 1 and 3 imply a configuration that output mark > > was not designed to support. The only valid use case for this seems > > to be the loopback case (as IP addresses would apply bidirectionally). > > As such, we believe that this behavioral change is acceptable as is. > > There was no need to resend this without changes. I still had this > patchset in my queue. I'm ok with the change, but you did not Cc > all the authors of the patch you want to fix. So please resend once > again with Cc to all the authors, so that they have a chance to > review this change. > > Thanks!
