From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (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 756EB34F474 for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 22:24:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779920668; cv=none; b=lx7zpErC/HRIwiMm5V0YU25BHJ75g6SLsNYXl+EQjVU+dCxu1hKknVex31U/J8m+It4ohXBkAtC+m0yRXPZslrASCpk3/qaqXmEkNyFy1QOF5mJIISA8mQPGwU5Me4xXUbka/CvV0rlb88b6Y+4GbLv7wU+LxntxFLHxD07bY6U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779920668; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fybwaFxqKtSwnFZ3Zb3u9ebVj1FzfPPT980QVUek5hg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WU5qPE8UIe85dTCkqkmec4l9JS1Itrxt/Gqubo174qkZsybm4TabAxG0ACPrlymyZlYwXx7mg5aFk+zJL3JSHLbcbQxrebSVcLScCfPL8LTaML7gzMFphT+fXwywfv+g2bxsmbB/zy0WSIg/l8B34vT1lltPph3LXaUDu3ZNsOs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=JLnTP+dX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 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) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="JLnTP+dX" Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 159CD60181; Thu, 28 May 2026 00:24:17 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1779920657; bh=mPa+yrLh78aLOQSl9tqxodEwT/W/NP1k0Lw63FiG924=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JLnTP+dXO6VJHL7xZG3pz8pKiGQEE/yUekLmQ4jBJaluN1Mcrtzed0yUzRcrt+Opx tSgFJ1f9p8503Rm772O8MS9kkNolPQiJkTN/2u8h3Z/uvvhq900rajNX9FJEa24LTD ngfkkC4SERGoaCmqo3TxZ9oseodr+ub1+3MK8auO0/RpkAstM2L8FN4SZYNi259uQU cI0+eBWPk5Dey7fk/lrGxJj2rWbLrDBk1s4XWv28Kz02/f6/1otmRuAsCce7q13/Ri XKzZJbeUkgwUBmXJBRfkiG0NFM5Vhpzwc9JqwG2Q2Qt5E6mAC0FpLh3y2uUctnggL/ QPBE27MMtqZ5A== Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 00:24:14 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Fernando Fernandez Mancera Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, fw@strlen.de, phil@nwl.cc Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 nf-next v4] netfilter: synproxy: misc fixes about synproxy core Message-ID: References: <20260526215831.6726-1-fmancera@suse.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 04:10:36PM +0200, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: > On 5/26/26 11:58 PM, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: > > This series fixes several long standing issues during synproxy timestamp > > adjustment and concurrent hook registration. From ignored error handling > > to unaligned memory access. Most of this are not issues impacting real > > setups as they would have been reported before. > > > > FWIW; I am sending these fixes as separated patches because they are > > addressing independent issues. > > > > Fernando Fernandez Mancera (5): > > netfilter: synproxy: drop packets if timestamp adjustment fails > > netfilter: synproxy: adjust duplicate timestamp options > > netfilter: synproxy: fix unaligned memory access in timestamp > > adjustment > > netfilter: synproxy: protect nf_ct_seqadj_init() with conntrack lock > > Sashiko pointed out another issue around nf_ct_seqadj_init() not related to > these patches. Could we get this merged (if it looks good) and the move > forward with a follow-up? I am afraid of pilling up a series that it is too > big. > > Any thoughts? > > P.S: I am owning the follow-up I just want to reduce the complexity of > getting everything merged together. Follow up should be fine, thanks Fernando.