From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com (sendmail.purelymail.com [34.202.193.197]) (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 B2D8D3655F1 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 03:05:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782702305; cv=none; b=YNEIGREeCcdDMwGY94ZxYJVyY++mUmcWUwkJWrOidB6TR8jr1/sy98JlM/nv3P3bCk1QBrDSTxuC+2dmk8KqRzAwgT7sXynTy8VzpIIY4kQRejVBfzBbXrZtp8F1rNFiVLuFqwKTUufWiQ/iBYOBTDYgdH5pGsVko0Ssp0IV8MY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782702305; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oxCWPESbNzwIFVB4kYj7psqNxYCoUW/bo0AUA11NdOY=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:From:To:Subject: References:In-Reply-To; b=EJkEL2decpo+vNopfxYiaNe4lGdkkd7mjiqfxs8e2ajb0Wu30R1lbgDB9Lhh/DoIQZX8fZyNqfy3zAPExJY2awx89vVDXRCUSPZ2wqlKCh1FVZj27TF3BYAKC0sKMM/1pzf2/jJoNYwhN/CeSc2xAcjKIZIqD+RQk8HpVOR0U2E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=rcpassos.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rcpassos.me; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rcpassos.me header.i=@rcpassos.me header.b=EIibuIXD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b=kHO+K8Bn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=rcpassos.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rcpassos.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rcpassos.me header.i=@rcpassos.me header.b="EIibuIXD"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b="kHO+K8Bn" Authentication-Results: purelymail.com; auth=pass DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=EIibuIXDCikSdjCUDVOb0Wa4HMb7+unZo9guX4Iva30iJvDU3dsbewUVeLflc3u6h2TP5+JE5azYx3YBlF+kBDgOKNk2MizdwenfpOYcGi/x5+obCD6/l4t71Uq+Jn6ypG4rlLv8sdgITjy+OcU48UUvsEzJsxSjDXOiDPM033MHXNrJtuYnl3yn51SIdexmTLTPBnJX8h4Z7Sm6A5O7zJpR5UZENLkEm7PazHwuHuKT7gWCgKco+v7g+Jj7d/v8vLPQMVMGhErNB7DXCvF5/knLWnVNjgCDSbw86HOay9lj3dWYCIrcGzgx6J/3F3TK2EFmZZMX/LtPVVhN78TpEg==; s=purelymail2; d=rcpassos.me; v=1; bh=oxCWPESbNzwIFVB4kYj7psqNxYCoUW/bo0AUA11NdOY=; h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=kHO+K8BnHLCk2mKmPQ20cBTbpWwELDm1rqwmrYi9+Gax5L8iwcbJyXGyiKZn2SoTGHvoWvPLrFg8nS06MTg1VokIztAb/jn5DXiv9HlhM3Mf/k8sVJ35lRAD0oRypXC0lUpIve+NKF22hahnBFNhmHvH2IcIBwUAYeW4W3l/ej1PeyOJanJ+mgeCJT05ac/qJ2ftVuPpkSQQ4xbws9BbU2AelNZB7D2uSs+h50vKjTXH71YG8tCSiCE69mxv/6UkOd4kRK4+Y5BlVOn7iCpfLQaGx32NMf/orb1WlDUAtZxXLqMCmfuwf8KrSQFIdhz86JazXJ2MUMBGX9tZuScvFw==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=oxCWPESbNzwIFVB4kYj7psqNxYCoUW/bo0AUA11NdOY=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Date:From:To:Subject; Feedback-ID: 45355:7809:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 2003467226; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Mon, 29 Jun 2026 03:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:05:08 -0300 Message-Id: Cc: "Rafael Passos" , , , , , , , , , , , From: "Rafael Passos" To: "Theodore Tso" , "Andrew Lunn" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wireguard: Fix data-race in rx/tx counter X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260628203823.144789-1-rafael@rcpassos.me> In-Reply-To: On Sun Jun 28, 2026 at 11:34 PM -03, Theodore Tso wrote: > One of the reasons why kcsan and syzbot can be quite noisy is that a > human being needs to *think* and consider whether or not this is > actually important. (One of the reasons why I'm not all that worried > about our new AI overlords taking over the world. :-) Consider what > is the worst that might happen if the tx/rx_bytes counter might not be > completely accurate? Is it worth the performance penalty of using > atomics (or the memory overhead of per-CPU counters)? Yeah, I guess not. Still, it was very interesting learning all this. I only knew per-cpu counters by name, and Andrew's response led me to actually understand it. I would like to thank you both! And if I may, I would like to send my v2 patch (as a response in this thread) just because it was very fun making and testing it. And I would love feedback on it, if anything looks wrong. This was an amazing learning opportunity for me. Thanks, Rafael Passos