From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=159.69.87.85 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793837970; b=gx9ilHGqwxaaT7kxL6OKRhOq4mMNn+7QktFo5ETJQNEDTfjaBNUDrMZO3/R8fd/14AeN XmpoV7Mh9wJNfSL30MmNc3Dlmbn+6+Ku8nsIAoD9YSnXle3qVHGV/VLXOF1Nfg1j4c32y sOnzIt+yxuIrKODlHe4aWkoQGD1PeZ1i0hvb7Nx2S/y3SHWYvyOWWst9YCnKXX7v9aLLG UXicEb7MqTYJg8ca8TL/YpAcHeLrMlyluQzsEPLd4MsEwX70DNkwaBc1kBMBaczkBKhea Fq1brQThJtsyp8vftgAYQXQznv/NHpG+1pggsMogydm5jBCy2Fy/zWuzJTTEEvd9WmA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793837970; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:User-Agent: MIME-Version:X-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Checker-Version; bh=HN6TW/NKI9aCPvbwatGDME3QAnxBQ1uDv6eHyfYd4YM=; b=EPPVzqC4s6oEVGjAoc1GDYT876Hm+aoip2ItJQQqPGGCThEBLYofxVVoQI7s4BfvyY3J y2Dx+gAApTLO+CfPridndO4of4cDn32MaBlh3gBvsL2dRASbgezz2xEaoswJFURNgNTif t+VvgSDdLqojvYF/UwaGKnbG+GvSUqIxxTR/9ZYlpBxEJOzQinyaP2EmP1IDpagxp77tj qDOboyNeGVGimGnOG3scjlgW/RPswJ+l3OqLd7o01nKv9IjkFG6WiMeEMBWvUJeZnGZ0c fHHdOYwdYRfGJieGvKhGHOLJSzsd/9eg/x35WL87XLw+pHofSTRRl0B+G1OcmEtYzTg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none header.from=linuxhacker.ru; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linuxhacker.ru; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=159.69.87.85 Received: from eagle.linuxhacker.ru (linuxhacker.ru [159.69.87.85]) (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 ESMTPS id 3E4A9606A32C for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2026 00:19:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 3E4A9606A32C Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxhacker.ru Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linuxhacker.ru Received: from [10.137.0.31] (unknown [162.81.204.199]) by eagle.linuxhacker.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35268BEE42; Thu, 5 Nov 2026 00:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/3] vsock/virtio: bound what a peer can make the host queue From: Oleg Drokin To: netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org Cc: sgarzare@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowangio@gmail.com, eperezma@redhat.com, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com, bobbyeshleman@meta.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2026 19:19:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <179383703519.488859.4429490517306926733@kernel.org> References: <20261105000141.3617241-1-green@linuxhacker.ru> <179383703519.488859.4429490517306926733@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Hello! This was discovered while working on porting a project from xen to kvm hypervisor. One of the llm security reviews demonstrated it as valid, so it's not purely a static analysis, It was also discovered that a partial patch exists that already was included yesterday, by Daehyeon Ko independently posted the same core fix - Commit: d5e912448cd9 "vhost/vsock: size receive SKBs from declared payload". >=20 On Thu, 2026-11-05 at 00:03 +0000, netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org wrote: > Hi! >=20 > This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its > commit messages seem to be missing some information: >=20 > =C2=A0- How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during > =C2=A0=C2=A0 development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or s= tatic > =C2=A0=C2=A0 analysis tool scan. >=20 > 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. >=20 > The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think > that is the case please reply and explain.