Re: [PATCH net-next 01/11] netfilter: synproxy: fix reset of ct seqadj when reopening a connection

[Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>]

FWOn 10/4/26 9:26 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just a gentle bump to this net-next PR containing Netfilter updates.
> 
> Let me know if there is anything that needs to be addressed.

AFAICT, this PR was merged to net-next on the 29th:
  https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/0a1a3898ab64fd4f7b90816fc61186d8eb5302a7

The bot was a little confused, but the reply was actually sent:
  https://lore.kernel.org/all/179064961102.229594.11396134169189168960.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/

Best regards, Ilya Maximets.

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 01:04:07AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 10:40:44PM +0000, netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
>>> commit messages seem to be missing some information:
>>>
>>>  - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
>>>    development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
>>>    analysis tool scan.
>>>
>>>  - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
>>>    (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
>>>    the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.
>>>
>>> Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
>>> reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
>>> can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
>>> other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
>>> then.
>>>
>>> The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
>>> that is the case please reply and explain.
>>
>> This are correctness fixes (no crashes to my knowledged, hence I
>> decided to target net-next) as the cover letter specifies:
>>
>> Patch #1 TCP sequence tracking issue was reported by sashiko as the
>>          cover letter says.
>>
>> Patch #2 Just documentation update to fix incorrect information
>>          about the maximum number of expectations.
>>
>> Patch #3 Just a cleanup patch to remove a break;
>>
>> Patch #4 Just a cleanup, typos in comments.
>>
>> Patch #5 and #6 are the result of a human triggered review of the
>>          conntrack error stats by Phil Sutter, I think.
>>
>> Patch #7 is a preparation patch for #8.
>>
>> Patch #8 removes a unnecessary workqueue flush, submitter does not
>>          specify if it is visible in production, I suspect with
>>          a very large number of netns it must be. Author does not
>>          claim LLM assistance.
>>
>> Patch #9 is a fix triggered by sashiko report IIRC, I deemed it too
>>          large for net so I am routing this rework-fix to net-next.
>>
>> Patch #10 is a feature fix, IPv6 filtering does not work.
>>           I suspect it was found when trying to use this (broken)
>>           feature by the submitter.
>>
>> Patch #11 Ilya Maximets reports the CTA_ZONE filtering feature is
>>           not easy to infer from userspace, I don't think LLM
>>           triggered this, it looks more like an improvement to help
>>           userspace tools discover this feature.
>>
>> This is human written reply, my cover letter has been generated by me
>> too to provide more context on these patches.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>