From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (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 79F8C264F9F; Mon, 1 Sep 2025 07:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756710908; cv=none; b=gzj9HMwFQi/MZjhmqfGGf6JK3HSDw1yEM+ABO6P46qGYM+02JilF4n2S1HrMbFMF/ksyze93tH0mzRKNvLdHitVg9f7lSjBDvCjZxvmPa3nZ5FVOwTkrRUKS+QaJ72rFosAPfw3WGR9/KjyiAGCnATGKwG4qEswmw6TtVhPjPo0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756710908; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZrdXRcJt4j8oZnNfOvY+77amPNFzlC9tn1RrwxxmdS0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=oJ/LLa++n2pd1RT1O2/0stn4wQHLoMefWCzCukr6GCSlU7gU53W+Qd4iN6rTtLk5ImfVB5Pkofpe8QMo8c2hHk9z6aOhLqkB0Ve5nYhYAoJ6imoLKFTlVPyCgBbOmFvAThRY6lSL5ZwddtwtZtP5T0Xcz/tVaybx54Bi8q7yRZI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4cFg9n6yfsz14MnD; Mon, 1 Sep 2025 15:14:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.57]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 200BA140202; Mon, 1 Sep 2025 15:15:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.179.113] (10.174.179.113) by dggpemf500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 1 Sep 2025 15:15:02 +0800 Message-ID: <879f09d3-1984-4de5-8eb5-7209c1cbf196@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 15:15:01 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipv6: annotate data-races around devconf->rpl_seg_enabled To: Jakub Kicinski CC: , , , , , , , , References: <20250827081243.1701760-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <20250829192737.680488a9@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Yue Haibing In-Reply-To: <20250829192737.680488a9@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To dggpemf500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.57) On 2025/8/30 10:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:12:43 +0800 Yue Haibing wrote: >> Also initializes extra1 and extra2 to SYSCTL_ZERO and SYSCTL_ONE >> respectively to avoid negative value writes, which may lead to >> unexpected results in ipv6_rpl_srh_rcv(). > > By unexpected results you mean that min() is intended to return 0 > when either value is zero, but if one of the values is negative it > will in fact return non-zero? Yes，this is exact. > > That's a fair point, but I'm not sure whether we should be sending > that up as a fix. It's more of a sanity check that prevents > unintentional misconfiguration.. Please split this patch into two > separate ones, and send the minmax one without a Fixes tag. > Please include more of the explanation I have provided in the first > paragraph in the commit message, "unexpected results" is too vague > by itself. Ok, thanks, will split and resend with this. >