> I've thought about this some more and decided to apply this and
> queue it up for -stable, thank you.
Thank you!
From: Maciej Żenczykowski
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 11:57:23 -0700
> From: Maciej Żenczykowski
>
> This reverts commit 19bda36c4299ce3d7e5bce10bebe01764a655a6d:
>
> | ipv6: add mtu lock check in __ip6_rt_update_pmtu
> |
> | Prior to this patch, ipv6 didn't do mtu lock check in ip6_update_pmtu.
>
> > It's local system policy, how do I react to packets. If it doesn't
> > violate the min/max limits for ipv6 packets it emits onto the internet
> > I don't see this as something that can be seen as mandatory.
It does violate the max limit for ipv6 packets it emits onto the internet.
You're not
> It's local system policy, how do I react to packets. If it doesn't
> violate the min/max limits for ipv6 packets it emits onto the internet
> I don't see this as something that can be seen as mandatory.
And if you *truly* do want to violate internet standards you can
indeed already achieve this
From: Maciej Żenczykowski
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 14:56:03 -0700
> There's *lots* of places where internet standards prevent Linux from
> doing various things.
"Linux" generally speaking?
That's true only if "rm -rf net/netfilter/ net/ipv4/netfilter
net/ipv6/netfilter"
Also, insert an XDP progr
I don't buy your argument at all.
There's *lots* of places where internet standards prevent Linux from
doing various things.
Trying to prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot, or
trying to be a good netizen.
If users require their computers to be broken, they can patch and
build their o
From: Maciej Żenczykowski
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 11:57:23 -0700
> The above reasoning is incorrect. IPv6 *requires* icmp based pmtu to work.
> There's already a comment to this effect elsewhere in the kernel:
How can an internet standard specify a system local policy decision
on this level?
If
