From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792532185; b=vXkBfrCUweAeufSrhYiaDF4vLbgeqIMtfCPb0AEb53/aZA4w5UAzwGbSOxZg6xS29g2H Mg2RzGL9GdIkcBFrk1ggSCPI5SG6NCL/iC+WjPu4ebagS9sfsHHctOzmJOCYJEQCudqJ0 wqdre428Z2pBMLE+J4zNDoQXXb46CZ+Ka1mjQFb/vhhdLTolj/85z0qIoAsiAgTfQZgtE +eLarGBLZT7m4rgbwJSXfdpePxhyIdtfeGnAThheT0lBX5j0U8Y7E1YR+arDSTeatGZ9q 0BuYxDb0tm69Y1fy2q6xw2wND01g9VsSokGSsC4s8ha3Vi9E+00Qq6OIQ8TneaztvxA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792532185; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To:X-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Checker-Version; bh=WGSLDYYijk345fyikRL5vlE3ORxnO5iKfo0O6aWc3uQ=; b=bGKTMCdeFDzslHAWVFqGzMStdTqTFvdhbHEzid80rxGBaBwiuIrkIXaG+260W047VVOI TPiQcz1vcJChQ1gpPdTEB5n3ME4sZb4HnrPAFvwslRLPH57hYsMaqwZKug4XohH7yNx7c lOURVjodiW0FjREuSMS9O/ndyOV5tKozMIO5ZSmLQopCgA90iyb6wI/vzDEd+kPF03gln XSBUkSatsyoGqgIr8jzC/z/hBs6VGs92LA8jyjhVwxqHtccHucmp6xiEXSNIclcjFuETo OJFP/9xGxsUS1HTec/vt1EOCJ8wnky+d3fxSjHjEOZkrkYxMXP0YqtQxIzc/4m0FTLg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2025 header.b=MW5nXvg8; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.70.190.124 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 54DE4606A31D; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 21:36:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 54DE4606A31D Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2025 header.b=MW5nXvg8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1792532181; bh=WGSLDYYijk345fyikRL5vlE3ORxnO5iKfo0O6aWc3uQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MW5nXvg8hGWdKMkizxJmWLmcb1MbUwNTDmLP0IJKWIfGtPaP/pMscNzT/4e3pYb31 U1ZC0LfDTy9QBISMXpmxGICS1tB5tAtQUpT/gZ7f18oPKYj6F9nnftyp8l09UeBV/k WkhHQiD59fYb1AHZSYEPiUmmfrKsPH6w/CjqxtpXVOFmOwvGQ2QI8HobkK7m7N+kcL HZHD5e83u2cnkHSonf2egO5fd0z4p+0RriFvOEDLKfLmQRjigRcQXXSsoCCwCjZngz 4wHoswZg3bTjE6Kf2bJTQEXM42nM/JQS7NixNsacxYuYr68EU2n/T6t2y4cm/dyEvv 8LfuZi1vaHpwQ== Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id B2DC460050; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:36:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:36:18 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, fw@strlen.de, ja@ssi.bg Subject: Re: [PATCH net 00/10] Netfilter/IPVS fixes for net Message-ID: References: <20261019150249.1879516-1-pablo@netfilter.org> <20261020141058.0acdb035@kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261020141058.0acdb035@kernel.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 02:10:58PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 17:02:39 +0200 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > 3) Fix races when handling overload flag in IPVS, this patch > > is not perfect but Julian considers this improves the situation. > > This was uncovered by LLM. From Julian Anastasov. > > > 6) Initialize IPCB for inet/ingress reject, uncovered by LLM. > > Could you look over the LLM review for these two specifically? Sure.