netdev - Re: [Patch net v8 0/9] netem: Fix skb duplication logic and prevent infinite loops

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

Message-ID: <aXEIJEiRJb3hfP5n@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 17:08:52 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Victor Nogueira <victor@...atatu.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	William Liu <will@...lsroot.io>, Savy <savy@...t3mfailure.io>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch net v8 0/9] netem: Fix skb duplication logic and prevent
 infinite loops

On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 10:07:37AM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 1:16 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patchset fixes the infinite loops due to duplication in netem, the
> > real root cause of this problem is enqueuing to the root qdisc, which is
> > now changed to enqueuing to the same qdisc. This is more reasonable,
> > more intuitive from users' perspective, less error-prone and more elegant
> > from kernel developers' perspective.
> >
> > Please see more details in patch 4/9 which contains two pages of detailed
> > explanation including why it is safe and better.
> >
> > This reverts the offending commits from William which clearly broke
> > mq+netem use cases, as reported by two users.
> >
> > All the TC test cases pass with this patchset.
> >
> 
> These patches should not be considered for any review because they are
> not following the rules that are set for the community. The rules,
> which are well documented, state that you must cc all stakeholders.
> When someone does this _on purpose_ such as Cong, some accountability
> needs to be imposed. I would say totally ignoring these patches is one
> option. Otherwise anyone can just throw a tantrum and decide those
> rules dont apply to them. Either that or we modify the rules to state
> it is ok to do this..

I'd prefer if we applied Hanlon's razor here and attribute this to
carelessness rather than mailce.

Please let's find a way to move this forward.