Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:47:30 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5.19 0537/1157] bpf: Set flow flag to allow any source IP in bpf_tunnel_key |
| |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 04:35:54PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 07:58:13PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > From: Paul Chaignon <paul@isovalent.com> > > > > [ Upstream commit b8fff748521c7178b9a7d32b5a34a81cec8396f3 ] > > > > Commit 26101f5ab6bd ("bpf: Add source ip in "struct bpf_tunnel_key"") > > added support for getting and setting the outer source IP of encapsulated > > packets via the bpf_skb_{get,set}_tunnel_key BPF helper. This change > > allows BPF programs to set any IP address as the source, including for > > example the IP address of a container running on the same host. > > > > In that last case, however, the encapsulated packets are dropped when > > looking up the route because the source IP address isn't assigned to any > > interface on the host. To avoid this, we need to set the > > FLOWI_FLAG_ANYSRC flag. > > This fix will also require upstream commits 861396ac0b47 ("geneve: Use > ip_tunnel_key flow flags in route lookups") and 7e2fb8bc7ef6 ("vxlan: > Use ip_tunnel_key flow flags in route lookups") to have the intended > effect. In short, these two commits "consume" the new field introduced > in 451ef36bd229 ("ip_tunnels: Add new flow flags field to > ip_tunnel_key") and populated in the present commit.
Ick. Is it better to just drop this commit instead? Or is it ok to also backport those 2 patches to 5.19.y?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |