From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailtransmit04.runbox.com (mailtransmit04.runbox.com [185.226.149.37]) (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 856BC4CCDC6 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 21:27:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.37 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790285277; cv=none; b=pSKYsHs+AxUpA+WV5Ry4ProrZJz4MxeLTr9uDqAMBnLpZR2MoJFhApRPU3YCzjGoeCxsHIASEpMH16LpSuRAicvXuY0OxxaX+BFHbX4YPDZsz5mA0QKVKVDysYAjZnNOF3UKrcTKjoHnjPbaWTlrhkQ3bsikCn2Xp0Sjl2NiaMI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790285277; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1zHAnH+umV1L8En3XVT+LSTrQHaSKX0xHUSYjQWoiLo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=J1U01aB0jU178LcdP18pggQE/l1kgzYEqFI43NiYm+B4ga1w06iCit1hSTIOxpO+K33MDIk0FQKJBnKO5ru4q9byE1VjyGq2L5srJhhyHqadl06xMOYm5w1Yhint/l8LunfFJ2Yv/PB0R8rMqkHvpC9F+8RJ8oyi4tVaRLU+YWU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b=eyf1r5mA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.37 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b="eyf1r5mA" Received: from mailtransmit03.runbox ([10.9.9.163] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit04.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1x9qyl-00A1un-Lr; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:43 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbox.co; s=selector1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Cc:To:Subject:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=tGlJKDqmPFMEFHThxe627EIkqKrm5WZ1IFuaT9TyLzM=; b=eyf1r5mAEwAl2hfabVqkoQMQ2q xUCKOzD0Casr+kGospDDCdPxRPNQexUDChQXAIECGdYLUGeppCDGtXiF0vIHb4CG5bF9sJupY/XXG uIHJaOwqwbT6OpVqjcIisIeb5/Q083Ff9kNMSLcpO7sSxOVBB6BZu5OBMCXdz9wOgFm91guW9tn6/ 6FH/itkv50SXTzd3x+mJpyo+4txRIcdyUpJgUtDSKL2it4uNf1lU/zTRWGBtL8+4sRB0Z+vjwYqIp 5B0qEtUxSiBdXmZ9T3XkKds9y54VNcrya2DlmuITHRwhXwWwrLwoLvzsgidWoTtcKLjcdaPcXE55W tvnEgPOw==; Received: from [10.9.9.72] (helo=submission01.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1x9qyg-0006Mo-Bh; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:38 +0200 Received: by submission01.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.95) id 1x9qyc-0058Im-ML; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4cc045be-3c58-4b31-86e2-f06d6ecb2177@rbox.co> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 23:27:33 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Michal Luczaj Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 4/8] vsock: drop the re-assignment logic To: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, sgarzare@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowangio@gmail.com, eperezma@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, imv4bel@gmail.com References: <20260922-vsock-connect-reset-closing-v3-4-78907b8200d4@rbox.co> <179025570429.2160803.6079312973703621422@kernel.org> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: <179025570429.2160803.6079312973703621422@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/24/26 15:15, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote: > [Severity: Medium] > Is the invariant behind this assertion always true? The commit message > says "On a failed connect(), transport is de-assigned", but > vsock_unconnected_reset() can return early without de-assigning: Addressed in comments to patch #3. > [Severity: Low] > Could the new precondition be documented? Yes. > [Severity: Low] > With this block gone, two comments elsewhere in the file still explain a > load-bearing check in terms of reassignment. Should they be updated? Yes.