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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM0EoMno99TjydUogh13tnWks-o7crt6mz1g7X5hyVF9ASmmfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:50:36 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
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 Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 12:08 PM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Making a mistake is one thing. I made a mistake by not Ccing Stephen
the other day. When I realized i hadnt, I immediately followed up,
sent him an apology, and pointed him to the thread.
This isn't the first time Cong has done this. So i dont believe this
was carelessness at all. See this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAM_iQpUGvHLB2cZmdd=0a4KAW2+RALNH=_jZruE1sju2gBGTeA@mail.gmail.com/#t
He posted the patchset a few hours after i responded to him.

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

I am not going to review this patch as it stands right now. If Cong
wants to explain himself, I may reconsider (which does not imply i
will accept this patch).
If you apply this patch as is - then it is only fair we fix the rules
to show this as an example of where such rules can be ignored.

cheers,
jamal