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 BDB2432F764 for ; Thu, 7 May 2026 05:54:08 +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=1778133251; cv=none; b=C/sXa9suO/qb19D8R9lKM78hIkQnDZqNlxKNmYpeh1IpAifqHfydYGg/zIKpEjhDKA2pYjbTxAk/gGijf6oM17zuj2BYkFSzi8YrPRf1vcg9rzLRnMjgj+3qrMpdOZa5TBASwK44UMyTtyMLGlUJM0fAmICVDk27OO+W13YdJtU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778133251; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vdUDKyEsmWH2y93zh2rXtHiWIuuWuDw3ES4ekFbLdrY=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QEyLLFTeXJrGAImSzGd/fZyhg67jfsqVU4kUzjLH8egk8F7Bs/0Bze43b6j/sB9MJ/BFyC5mJQgfIEYtR8CqRopd/zHHyxjkYRFjWRXfxIa+cAWgXcPwU7rh+cbRelWgEcYh/oQTdn1GdQ391tOYhGlwiRaA/ip9K+ri5VhYL1s= 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=RdW8erXR; 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="RdW8erXR" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4A2206DF; Thu, 7 May 2026 07:54:06 +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 P9Pes1OaK0xk; Thu, 7 May 2026 07:54:05 +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 05A462067A; Thu, 7 May 2026 07:54:05 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.secunet.com 05A462067A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secunet.com; s=202301; t=1778133245; bh=bKwPfNu6eXE8thNJCiuhb2gb/Y3wZqs+ChZtr4i0GlQ=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RdW8erXReECdZqdF0nv7ctNKatoCvUlI8lSJeocV3WebIFktZsty9EJX7g3Fi3yfG VEAAIFm+GhihPLo98Cg3Cj2ACBJWKQj1kt7Ucypw1RHam/uM2z5O6nfolMwHVdbNAO PDfb2dZU9s6AYVa04HaPoPva/nHbaPdEIuLmpbZk2NhrHLUdHmLmImrvpefxWC2rdW P2BA6Ts1zU8d4fltyB7X2BLY1vHm1IgY/s5K/WTR2J0/Z+V/D3mtXV3mlK/nfUUOve t79jFevPRqjQ0LvVmX5npjwzzw79kvZtTvFaqZ4bd2E3vVLyL5aNKJWFR1/1aTCMSh 9i8ruEn5wMEXg== 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; Thu, 7 May 2026 07:54:04 +0200 Received: (nullmailer pid 1286833 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 07 May 2026 05:54:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 07:54:04 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Jakub Kicinski CC: David Miller , Herbert Xu , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] pull request (net): ipsec 2026-05-05 Message-ID: References: <20260505132326.1362733-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> <20260506165035.61964333@kernel.org> <20260506165149.12e30102@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@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: <20260506165149.12e30102@kernel.org> X-ClientProxiedBy: EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) To EXCH-01.secunet.de (10.32.0.171) On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 04:51:49PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 2026 16:50:35 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 5 May 2026 15:22:56 +0200 Steffen Klassert wrote: > > > 5. Harden __xfrm_state_delete() against repeated or inconsistent unhashing > > > of state list nodes by keying the removal on actual list membership and > > > using delete-and-init helpers. From Michal Kosiorek. > > > > Sashiko seems to have extra comments for this but I suspect follow up > > is the way to go there. > > I should have made it clear - Claude-shiko: > > https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260505132326.1362733-4-steffen.klassert@secunet.com I think the races Sashiko reveals here don't exist. __xfrm_state_delete() is always called with the xfrm_state lock held, so there can't be a second __xfrm_state_delete() on the same xfrm_state.