On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 02:29:17PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote: > If this never worked, then why target these patches at net and blaming > up to 7 years old commits? I try to follow [1] when deciding between net > and net-next. You are right, it is not a regression. If there is a v2 it will go to net-next without the Fixes tags.
> Also, did you hit this in practice or was this flagged by AI? If nobody > is using save/restore and hitting this in practice, then maybe it's not > worth to loosen the validation performed by the kernel. It was flagged by an AI review of a new encap I am working on (SRv6 Mobile User Plane, still RFC). I reproduced it there, and checking the existing encaps showed rpl, ioam6, xfrm and the ip tunnel options behave the same. I have no report from their users. My motivation was that a feature which exists should not silently fail, and the series only drops the flag check on the container; everything nested inside is still validated strictly. But if nobody relies on save/restore for these encaps, I am fine dropping the series, and the new encap will keep nla_parse_nested() like rpl, ioam6 and xfrm. Thanks
