netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/23][pull request] Queue configs and large buffer providers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250820183711.6586c1c6@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:37:11 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Willem de
 Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
 sdf@...ichev.me, almasrymina@...gle.com, dw@...idwei.uk,
 michael.chan@...adcom.com, dtatulea@...dia.com, ap420073@...il.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/23][pull request] Queue configs and large
 buffer providers

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 14:39:51 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 8/20/25 03:31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 14:57:16 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote:  
> >> Jakub Kicinski (20):  
> > 
> > I think we need to revisit how we operate.
> > When we started the ZC work w/ io-uring I suggested a permanent shared
> > branch. That's perhaps an overkill. What I did not expect is that you
> > will not even CC netdev@ on changes to io_uring/zcrx.*
> > 
> > I don't mean to assert any sort of ownership of that code, but you're
> > not meeting basic collaboration standards for the kernel. This needs
> > to change first.  
> 
> You're throwing quite allegations. Basic collaboration standards don't
> include spamming people with unrelated changes via an already busy list.
> I cc'ed netdev on patches that meaningfully change how it interacts
> (incl indirectly) with netdev and/or might be of interest, which is
> beyond of the usual standard expected of a project using infrastructure
> provided by a subsystem.

To me iouring is a fancy syscall layer. It's good at its job, sure,
but saying that netdev provides infrastructure to a syscall layer is
laughable.

> There are pieces that don't touch netdev, like
> how io_uring pins pages, accounts memory, sets up rings, etc. In the
> very same way generic io_uring patches are not normally posted to
> netdev, and netdev patches are not redirected to mm because there
> are kmalloc calls, even though, it's not even the standard used here.

I'm asking you to CC netdev, and people who work on ZC like Mina.
Normal reaction to someone asking to be CCed on patches is "Sure."
I don't understand what you're afraid of.

> If you have some way you want to work, I'd appreciate a clear
> indication of that, because that message you mentioned was answered
> and I've never heard any objection, or anything else really.

It honestly didn't cross my mind that you'd only CC netdev on patches
which touch code under net/. I'd have let you know sooner but it's hard
to reply to messages one doesn't see. I found out that there's whole
bunch of ZC work that landed in iouring from talking to David Wei.