From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A69A1E506; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709555726; cv=none; b=WvW6E2rK/xckT/zLG9/wNeCNdp4JycptVGlM0K8y0N+fIefTCIUeLoaBdZXEljPbKH+0z4mF+RbqHnc2Spu+Qt7TY5XQ2TuxtdO0cqBFqQUBxv+xOiexirDQg239BmG4sM+FJsPtHZQyZp1CoDpJm9/zgLxrNAKcazo+yR2bGW0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709555726; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UAf6tcMaNPs1eGCxWZJOpp9hXkM/lsyYYu4bBVNMG4o=; h=Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=i+kmR0kFD/l1yd6+CZCSqHLxUtokdxQQTjWVvAfj77uQXC/rNJc2pnKLLQPo/D4IaTtyFxafyN0WycygCKwU5LfVajpLeYbSohZAiyb1fb75JbhUFXOO8BYVQp9rpJJJ8Ta2fQZP/+yWonhQUUQCp9jwV49CenECbBWLwKl+2uc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=jExxalFZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="jExxalFZ" Received: from pps.filterd (m0360083.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 424C7Snk019373; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:15 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=JZJ6t3ssrTX3U2wVUw5YeB7doUKBXWHMDzWh4yzrbOE=; b=jExxalFZXU+HrUr3lvLQhwKDMylXjbB+mDvd822K3P7Vw9+HCcIgXqq9BQtFq/ONwQ1E TTEV6Au8hmQ9OGMiuacy16VdbOwiO+vTHf1Vd+CFrXds5TYpI+F22btdAXrGnXfS0pR7 6M6UW9lTm8LJOvpKKGUlZmvHsI7cA069tt9HB21s51X8MYourk3N3kZgxyOyCwOeiTDB oVKE0/PsBStO6PQSLaTCJENmz4nrGpGTV0qUWFuoqZK9Ntv7ShUrp1L0ml5kBXbjgOgl f/x6ss9IqnP0dZsmqH1iE2+50Jxwf5G2yfzSgNGmgOvKy4orRKWONsmoFy+3jsIylQvx xA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wne18rndr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:35:14 +0000 Received: from m0360083.ppops.net (m0360083.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 424C7dY4019762; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:14 GMT Received: from ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5b.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.91]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wne18rncg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:35:14 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 424ADDmd026296; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:12 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.6]) by ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3wmfengh9x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:35:12 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.102]) by smtprelay04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 424CZAeN20840972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:12 GMT Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2516D58061; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D315807A; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.31.119] (unknown [9.171.31.119]) by smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:35:08 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4058292e-aa1f-465b-9bf3-9b674cbb0654@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:35:07 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Reaching official SMC maintainers Content-Language: en-GB To: Dmitry Antipov , Jakub Kicinski Cc: Jan Karcher , Wen Gu , "D. Wythe" , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvc-project@linuxtesting.org References: From: Wenjia Zhang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: CVCUAcfjFb-JWvsmF6waEJ5XxAw0FiyY X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: kOldf0cWXDaWs0NrPuR6BTfgm-ea2G4d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-03-04_08,2024-03-04_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311290000 definitions=main-2403040094 On 04.03.24 11:31, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > Jakub, > > could you please check whether an official maintainers of net/smc are > actually active? I'm interesting just because there was no feedback on > [1]. After all, it's still a kernel memory leak, and IMO should not be > silently ignored by the maintainers (if any). > > Thanks, > Dmitry > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240221051608.43241-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru/ > Hi Dmitry, I'm on the way to answering you. I understand your worry and appreciate your sugguestion on the improvement. Since I'm not the original author, either, I also need to undestand what was the original intention. i.e. Why should the fasync_list of the smc socket be handed over to the clc socket? Is there a way to deal with the list prior to the fallback? AIU, the syzbot's reports on whichever the original fixed or your last patch fixed are about the same issue. And both of the fixes seem not to solve the problem. Instead of patches on patches, I'd prefer to find the root problem and solve it. Thus, to the proposed patches from you guys (and back to the question at the beginning), if the fasyn_list should be handed over, I like the Wen Gu's patch more. Otherwise, I'd like yours more, but as you already underlied, it should be done in some other way Thanks, Wenjia