From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 6B20115ACB for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:13:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FnogE//S" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11CC3C433C8; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:13:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1704222788; bh=NCkb8tqkA8HY7gh6lvwbzF5A/ByZUw4XdXim4tR6Y7Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FnogE//SeQW/U4BrnHUYNqZnlLzSG9HiH+UJCu+sbwqLusp5TVi6kg1o8Zg0a5uH8 JP+xGWrwbOf2swbpe+F5ndqpjvbFW2SkEMBq/DXU6Wxt0sRNNpf/jdyXq6v7rXdvu0 VDlw/TYfNV2+n9fD54ys2VtV5FRiLiPoIMSqCH5NgKIWv65raq4H0L8ATL7KRTK35y kcBK3nJiQVSA7/7ztjiVBiItFDwcZmpFtbI1TIwBWWVLvy9gaM3ITout7jrtRpOf3P HpC9NuautlbCUeLuvbvQuJCQYcQ3dVDJ6CfnwwsksR1JW/Yc3WarSDy9yvFm+vZPxI VNsXlzTtXracg== Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 21:13:04 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Gal Pressman , David Ahern , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Shachar Kagan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya , "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: Revert no longer abort SYN_SENT when receiving some ICMP Message-ID: <20240102191304.GB5160@unreal> References: <14459261ea9f9c7d7dfb28eb004ce8734fa83ade.1704185904.git.leonro@nvidia.com> <20240102095835.GF6361@unreal> <20240102114147.GG6361@unreal> <20240102180102.GA5160@unreal> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:33:23PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 7:01 PM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:31:15PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 12:41 PM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:03:55AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:58 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 10:46:13AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:01 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Shachar Kagan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This reverts commit 0a8de364ff7a14558e9676f424283148110384d6. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shachar reported that Vagrant (https://www.vagrantup.com/), which is > > > > > > > > very popular tool to manage fleet of VMs stopped to work after commit > > > > > > > > citied in Fixes line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue appears while using Vagrant to manage nested VMs. > > > > > > > > The steps are: > > > > > > > > * create vagrant file > > > > > > > > * vagrant up > > > > > > > > * vagrant halt (VM is created but shut down) > > > > > > > > * vagrant up - fail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would rather have an explanation, instead of reverting a valid patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been on vacation for some time. I may have missed a detailed > > > > > > > explanation, please repost if needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our detailed explanation that revert worked. You provided the patch that > > > > > > broke, so please let's not require from users to debug it. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you need a help to reproduce and/or test some hypothesis, Shachar > > > > > > will be happy to help you, just ask. > > > > > > > > > > I have asked already, and received files that showed no ICMP relevant > > > > > interactions. > > > > > > > > > > Can someone from your team help Shachar to get a packet capture of > > > > > both TCP _and_ ICMP packets ? > > > > > > > > I or Gal will help her, but for now let's revert it, before we will see > > > > this breakage in merge window and later in all other branches which will > > > > be based on -rc1. > > > > > > Patch is in net-next, we have at least four weeks to find the root cause. > > > > I saw more than once claims that netdev is fast to take patches but also > > fast in reverts. There is no need to keep patch with known regression, > > while we are in -rc8. > > This patch is not in rc8, unless I am mistaken ? Patch is not, but the timeline is. Right now, we are in -rc8 and in next week, the merge window will start. > > > > > > > > > I am a TCP maintainer, I will ask you to respect my choice, we have > > > tests and reverting the patch is breaking one of them. > > > > At least for ipv6, you changed code from 2016 and the patch which I'm asking > > to revert is not even marked as a fix. So I don't understand the urgency to keep > > the patch. > > Do you have an issue with IPv4 code or IPv6 ? I think that IPv4, I looked on IPv6 dates just because it was easy to do. It looks like IPv4 code which you are changing existed in its current form even before git era. > > It would help to have details. We prepared raw PCAP files and I'm uploading them. It takes time. > > > > There are two things to consider: > > 1. Linux rule number one is "do not break userspace". > > No released kernel contains the issue yet. Nothing broke yet. After merge window, it will and I want to avoid it. > > net-next is for developers. It is encouraged to test net-next, so we did it and reported. > > > 2. Linux is a community project and people can have different opinions, > > which can be different from your/mine. > > > > Thanks > > I think we have time, and getting this patch with potential users on > it will help to debug the issue. Like I said, Shachar can test any debug patches, just ask her. Thanks