From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 1E6C818E02A for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 19:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752004667; cv=none; b=CT0V4XWJVziumbxJ6SNfu/KFaxyg57gm71SwFmTgv0PSrvc145uBSfrlxltFX8e3oTMqRXbnA/UBZKHu2wi1bEOTfPgj8mLmI6Jg8WS1nnn6ibBQ93PV0+aCHO4j1Pi1uVKzdIewgy1qAQpgzYns88X12ptSxw4n+kJkrgBWmnw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752004667; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3W01dS28+sBmQz557shX2kn/QrQq3Ky2Im+D6oEOqn0=; h=From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:Subject:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Date:Message-ID; b=G1IWdTCjJckRzl4Gf3CRlKDFzLhxICYej5lwu/16nUkIfLxdPuF92UX42/F6axSeet1h0aS90Tfa6LYSyHqDlISeWJhOIeYtOjZeT6IZBge8M8hlvuSc2adBi60FH7HhvkmwnkTUEkJdxmH1XhQ84bZVQWIxibbpnEq3itXEuYM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=LtqML/T0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="LtqML/T0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1752004664; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6HGjclnOAXK9019FQJQ+HU3FhyBNdDo7cnQ/RXk00nA=; b=LtqML/T0seG3HQWGUPi5fm+U7BW9Zg5oWbXLPPcXXB+18vGenLxILgoA3U2u5TXYymmXAm /YVGnlrJWhNvRZFWVpqdiiQkknYpdjR1vrXbALQtuXih8y0a3MSQa9RBmjM6LrEDqCvYnN 6LfMDlS0XOC6FIKO0ASxgy3UgLPJhEQ= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-627-c2RbVfKTNfuw-4QkRLBgkA-1; Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:57:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: c2RbVfKTNfuw-4QkRLBgkA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: c2RbVfKTNfuw-4QkRLBgkA_1752004657 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F3219560AD; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 19:57:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.42.28.81]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCB519560AB; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 19:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20250708120336.03383758@kernel.org> References: <20250708120336.03383758@kernel.org> <20250707102435.2381045-1-dhowells@redhat.com> <20250707102435.2381045-3-dhowells@redhat.com> To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Marc Dionne , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Junvyyang, Tencent Zhuque Lab" , Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] rxrpc: Fix bug due to prealloc collision Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2687075.1752004650.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 20:57:30 +0100 Message-ID: <2687076.1752004650@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:24:34 +0100 David Howells wrote: > > + rxrpc_prefail_call(call, RXRPC_CALL_LOCAL_ERROR, -EBADSLT); > > + __set_bit(RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED, &call->flags); > > is the __set_bit() needed / intentional here? > Looks like rxrpc_prefail_call() does: > > WARN_ON_ONCE(__test_and_set_bit(RXRPC_CALL_RELEASED, &call->flags)); Actually, it shouldn't be. I added that first, then realised that wasn't sufficient. I also realised there should be a third patch I failed to restack onto the git branch. Can you take the first patch and I'll alter this and repost this patch and add the lost one? Or should I just repost all three? David