From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.secunet.com (mx1.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) (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 596AB3B38BD; Tue, 5 May 2026 05:42:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777959746; cv=none; b=UyOvQGs9K1yL/3yBsPTH7NmvpdyFMptXD+Q22gU8zh1JGXrAF+FBe8w8dG3SmSjGi9VprLFJGBI0es8ZLpdSLB8E0LOZXGbUdnujLpOx4UJxooyAZoEdINNej/DZt/qPJJz/9FADOLfM+K/He28uovzl02Y3POfIxmmolrutz2g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777959746; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rc8ERhUgL8kJ9G6ULhFgUZndgBMUabGV9dCng+4g9lE=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sCW5R95djRQPrRR6fC4LvvYPLw4QwbX1FsecL20LblNe7F+RZIFYGOiLiUkEjk9zzMg98JqClukDHzNA4dD3WpqoWvXcmvtcs4y0RFb0GuzyRqC47eKGsWbGt8ifhxGaJntgDJIugp2uPuzcnv+h0W04q0/Kk1XL65/JnraAnj4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b=h95Yi7OQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.96.220.36 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=secunet.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=secunet.com header.i=@secunet.com header.b="h95Yi7OQ" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3236F201D3; Tue, 5 May 2026 07:42:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from mx1.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZL8htbvpt135; Tue, 5 May 2026 07:42:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EXCH-01.secunet.de (rl1.secunet.de [10.32.0.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE4F206E9; Tue, 5 May 2026 07:42:20 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com 4BE4F206E9 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1777959740; bh=AX/mJIodJOkU62A34/3ZwiHur+eoFFAy0H8PUqWd6tg=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=h95Yi7OQh8MVszlvv8wse50Q1ynYdOoB71gycNyLbo3n1weFbqkLhj0a4AAKnk2gw nZJ8mDPNhkDiwFvsOgjVk32EB9bbQ76qxPTdLXUA66WmLcqb6VWWWfr2yRbzuO0KG2 nzbyPacfIIW/jg1+Kam7NvyQBYoh2oVX0RldDPS28cn+NwlsOPxi2Ndn28p8kT+f9o nvPjnZRqPGhIjEDV7FLwgVOm+/+tqctq7cDdSVQvGIXO/m1HF1Ub+iCkvhFo+FwHGx AhclimUGEA/yq5I4c0Aqq/OoWaZKRNivkcAltvcMN9r4JgMkdnuOTDnvyiupXaBFmb uVzNLPBkAIWKQ== Received: from secunet.com (10.182.7.193) by EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.17; Tue, 5 May 2026 07:42:19 +0200 Received: (nullmailer pid 3692452 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 05 May 2026 05:42:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 07:42:18 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Hex Rabbit CC: Hyunwoo Kim , , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Herbert Xu , Simon Horman , "David S . Miller" , David Ahern , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Ido Schimmel , Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] xfrm: esp: avoid in-place decrypt on shared skb frags Message-ID: References: <20260504152712.76305-1-h3xrabbit@gmail.com> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: EXCH-03.secunet.de (10.32.0.183) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 10:49:42AM +0800, Hex Rabbit wrote: > Hi Hyunwoo, Steffen, > > > The report and patch for this issue were already posted on > > the public netdev ML 6 days ago, i.e., the bug was already > > publicly reported: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/afLDKSvAvMwGh7Fy@v4bel/ > > > > Credit for patch authorship is adequately covered by > > Signed-off-by alone. Setting aside that your work proceeded > > independently rather than as a review of my earlier > > submission, the trailer should conform to convention to > > avoid future misunderstanding. > > For clarity, I also found and reported the issue independently to > security@kernel.org on the same day, with my own reproducer and > root-cause analysis. At that time I was not aware of your report or > patch; otherwise I would have referenced it earlier. > > I am still not fully familiar with the exact kernel trailer convention > here, so I added both Reported-by tags because the reports were > independent. > > Steffen, either trailer form is fine with me. If you decide to drop my > Reported-by because the patch already has my Signed-off-by, I have no > objection. You reported it, so you can have the tag. This is now applied to the ipsec tree, thanks a lot everybody!