From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F1BCCA47C for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 13:07:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244410AbiFGNHC (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:07:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54630 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239390AbiFGNHB (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:07:01 -0400 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F69B41D3; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dggemv704-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LHVvT6BVJz1KB26; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 21:05:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemm600009.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.164) by dggemv704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 21:06:57 +0800 Received: from [10.174.176.73] (10.174.176.73) by kwepemm600009.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 21:06:56 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/3] support concurrent sync io for bfq on a specail occasion From: Yu Kuai To: Jan Kara CC: , , , , , , Jens Axboe References: <20220428120837.3737765-1-yukuai3@huawei.com> <61b67d5e-829c-8130-7bda-81615d654829@huawei.com> <81411289-e13c-20f5-df63-c059babca57a@huawei.com> <55919e29-1f22-e8aa-f3d2-08c57d9e1c22@huawei.com> <20220523085902.wmxoebyq3crerecr@quack3.lan> <25f6703e-9e10-75d9-a893-6df1e6b75254@kernel.dk> <20220523152516.7sr247i3bzwhr44w@quack3.lan> <21cd1c49-838a-7f03-ab13-9a4f2ac65979@huawei.com> <20220607095430.kac5jgzm2gvd7x3c@quack3.lan> <9a51c7b1-ba6c-0a56-85cf-5e602b9c6ec2@huawei.com> Message-ID: <75ebf18b-0e21-3906-7862-6ca80b2f181d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 21:06:55 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9a51c7b1-ba6c-0a56-85cf-5e602b9c6ec2@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.176.73] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To kwepemm600009.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.164) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2022/06/07 19:51, Yu Kuai 写道: > 在 2022/06/07 17:54, Jan Kara 写道: >> On Tue 07-06-22 11:10:27, Yu Kuai wrote: >>> 在 2022/05/23 23:25, Jan Kara 写道: >>>> Hum, for me all emails from Huawei I've received even today fail the >>>> DKIM >>>> check. After some more digging there is interesting inconsistency in >>>> DMARC >>>> configuration for huawei.com domain. There is DMARC record for >>>> huawei.com >>>> like: >>>> >>>> huawei.com.        600    IN    TXT >>>> "v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc@edm.huawei.com" >>>> >>>> which means no DKIM is required but _dmarc.huawei.com has: >>>> >>>> _dmarc.huawei.com.    600    IN    TXT >>>> "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;ruf=mailto:dmarc@huawei.com;rua=mailto:dmarc@huawei.com" >>>> >>>> >>>> which says that DKIM is required. I guess this inconsistency may be the >>>> reason why there are problems with DKIM validation for senders from >>>> huawei.com. Yu Kuai, can you perhaps take this to your IT support to >>>> fix >>>> this? Either make sure huawei.com emails get properly signed with >>>> DKIM or >>>> remove the 'quarantine' record from _dmarc.huawei.com. Thanks! >>>> >>>>                                 Honza >>>> >>> Hi, Jan and Jens >>> >>> I just got response from our IT support: >>> >>> 'fo' is not set in our dmarc configuration(default is 0), which means >>> SPF and DKIM verify both failed so that emails will end up in spam. >>> >>> It right that DKIM verify is failed because there is no signed key, >>> however, our IT support are curious how SPF verify faild. >>> >>> Can you guys please take a look at ip address of sender? So our IT >>> support can take a look if they miss it from SPF records. >> >> So SPF is what makes me receive direct emails from you. For example on >> this >> email I can see: >> >> Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com >>          [185.176.79.56]) >>          (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 >> (128/128 >>          bits)) >>          (No client certificate requested) >>          by smtp-in2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LHFjN2L0dzZfj >>          for ; Tue,  7 Jun 2022 03:10:32 +0000 (UTC) >> ... >> Authentication-Results: smtp-in2.suse.de; >>          dkim=none; >>          dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; >>          spf=pass (smtp-in2.suse.de: domain of yukuai3@huawei.com >> designates >>          185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) >> smtp.mailfrom=yukuai3@huawei.com >> >> So indeed frasgout.his.huawei.com is correct outgoing server which makes >> smtp-in2.suse.de believe the email despite missing DKIM signature. But >> the >> problem starts when you send email to a mailing list. Let me take for >> example your email from June 2 with Message-ID >> <20220602082129.2805890-1-yukuai3@huawei.com>, subject "[PATCH -next] >> mm/filemap: fix that first page is not mark accessed in filemap_read()". >> There the mailing list server forwards the email so we have: >> >> Received: from smtp-in2.suse.de ([192.168.254.78]) >>          (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 >> bits)) >>          by dovecot-director2.suse.de with LMTPS >>          id 8MC5NfVvmGIPLwAApTUePA >>          (envelope-from ) >>          for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:08:21 +0000 >> Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email >> [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) >>          by smtp-in2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4LDJYK5bf0zZg5 >>          for ; Thu,  2 Jun 2022 08:08:21 +0000 (UTC) >> Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand >>          id S232063AbiFBIIM (ORCPT ); >>          Thu, 2 Jun 2022 04:08:12 -0400 >> Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56178 "EHLO >>          lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by >>          vger.kernel.org >>          with ESMTP id S232062AbiFBIIL (ORCPT >>          ); >>          Thu, 2 Jun 2022 04:08:11 -0400 >> Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com >> [45.249.212.188]) >>          by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id >>          75DDB25FE; >>          Thu,  2 Jun 2022 01:08:08 -0700 (PDT) >> >> and thus smtp-in2.suse.de complains: >> >> Authentication-Results: smtp-in2.suse.de; >>          dkim=none; >>          dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" >>          header.from=huawei.com (policy=quarantine); >>          spf=pass (smtp-in2.suse.de: domain of >>          linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates >> 2620:137:e000::1:20 as >>          permitted sender) >> smtp.mailfrom=linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org >> >> Because now we've got email with "From" header from huawei.com domain >> from >> a vger mail server which was forwarding it. So SPF has no chance to match >> (in fact SPF did pass for the Return-Path header which points to >> vger.kernel.org but DMARC defines that if "From" and "Return-Path" do not >> match, additional validation is needed - this is the "SPF not aligned >> (relaxed)" message above). And missing DKIM (the additional validation >> method) sends the email to spam. > > Thanks a lot for your analysis, afaics, in order to fix the > problem, either your mail server change the configuration to set > alignment mode to "relaxed" instead of "strict", or our mail server > add correct DKIM signature for emails. > > I'll contact with our IT support and try to add DKIM signature. > > Thanks, > Kuai Hi, Jan Our IT support is worried that add DKIM signature will degrade performance, may I ask that how is your mail server configuation? policy is quarantine or none, and dkim signature is supportted or not. Thanks, Kuai