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: <aX0aVgCBTGpGYaJV@pop-os.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 12:53:42 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch net v8 0/9] netem: Fix skb duplication logic and prevent
 infinite loops

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 09:15:56AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:07:37 -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..
> 
> We (the netdev maintainers) had a chat off list and concluded that it'd
> be great if we (the two of you and one maintainer) met over VC. Either
> technical solution is fine, but we want to make sure there's no ongoing
> animosity. No agenda for the meeting, just want to make sure you can
> have a friendly chat. We can talk about the weather, AI code reviews or
> everyone's favorite animals. At the end of the meeting we can either
> decide or flip a coin.

I offered people involved here for a video chat, *check note*, in

26 Nov 2025:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/aSe%2FIfNSZBTTAfTA@pop-os.localdomain/
8 Jul 2025:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/aG2OUoDD2m5MqdSz@pop-os.localdomain/

No one responded, obviously.

Jakub, please let me know how to talk to people who kept rejecting to
talk. It is just logically impossible to me, and I have tried my best.

I wish you best luck for doing so.

Thanks!