From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4EF268C42 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 18:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763835294; cv=none; b=XLZAgb/z3Y3kuROrd9KOc5DEkDELB28gipo/MH22TMOCHDzzGZpBT8jsx7PUKo3LjFQsdBEtavBNdJ9XjYBTVxFXqcybhHrEOc31sj8SPVYHWkUiUswuZ32LxVDLsFPXOXVUsE3TZk2Ij4t8jqGllnYVoW6UTa4P9YwJFlcBOYw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763835294; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FFdoSJ9u62Km9rBg5OXJAYM1Xn/OsZj0Z5qC/8KIAAA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sVUImBCt9rgF+MfCJxv6d+bWsWkwCEU1WQCPywT9at13LIXk++Bsr+jMmC4od5Sy4+QIDDIHXwMB/hBKoYv8/hE/5Et+BUs6yiq3KK8jDR0zYJoANOtgYazp4IWNCZz4ZHk6rvTPZMn86+bwiNPgS7fy5Crdbeof+3LSjzIGutw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=C1KHhyKx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="C1KHhyKx" Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-297e264528aso34404565ad.2 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 10:14:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1763835292; x=1764440092; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+dNWXnZ+CpQauZmGtwlNbimoKH0yvdO1MlblAJyrYMc=; b=C1KHhyKxwmLDolCKhDRLlszsQyK/Yq8aGQXadUdQr1C0xA2MWm7E6JjgyuksRoC6kv OzG4U4eph8TL9u6GZBTPcUZDgpVkwj+qvFmzIEA7o0oCvy7gqeDxKJhFO95Y0LvcONYS d0x2IW0Vo58ryCEQGeIS1LN0CBXcmZ9QoQtxxdlhr+lnWUE3roBLiZveX2xCl4pQE456 x45SKzmew9fen8KtuZ+aXv611mGs5JGnUGUmPVZn+jTwyGPK2Mphle9zFysj/c+/18fV daoWDPgiu8eQ8ChDQap1BdFYwXkshNjiCUy/XlUUjcBdmFd39WI+zLkr+a2ZjlIEAUwh xgoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763835292; x=1764440092; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+dNWXnZ+CpQauZmGtwlNbimoKH0yvdO1MlblAJyrYMc=; b=XJNro3l6TeaAzCfJ9Nl12n1x/RB9dZ0YYBUrL6LU9lqK/FOM+pS2QYO0xcCNiBe5KF gvdT8dbQSvVGmCkrgsjDtkWp+sRaAi+sg76/lzjhSkkDCae+kGP6kHya1HTt+gZruhiG ywIFNZKiIyclSjkaQ7MP6eJH2RONP3SijRrnSYhhMH1bM+qhYC352c2RhGdvu22bYS74 wam87ZMjmZ4T55cNfgkLXoFLWWR8fIC9LVHhqHWwcwK8ENKiyPwJLv4oNOYHbsbrnbr0 n8igX5lgUTfxJL3mXtKsFwZ/OEUm1JCEFUzt9Kw6pK0fl3sCd8i6S+btbZC04j0+yQ43 +qIQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVZl+zQLUmJnTPyrEUfvouQTUSmkv/yH7r/pi/EsqTolBxTYfFu74lVmQSPtaw9yKb09tbpcZ8DRtTmRe4=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxHl+W9RCd5H1b6+Dm+2eA0y+SkjUTS0hwO0e4jkqb+CT2mSNfm W0+PpmJXoP7JA+ayiAqFziyv2EqzoImtrxgi6nXBhg28P7OqrgmJkAQC X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvL5RFZ3T8AgGHQL0A1XK+E2CyC5r+2YFomtY135f4ZdUbWKiOQfdt/lbxBrJE 2Hf+D/n479JYHPy38VMFkEoHrIi7TnfLVf0VzkGcmCn8Npv8yDzxYEw3Iz9ipje9l57ru+8kXDc MYNuy/uBlIJOXSwys4+4fYo4F8mvwgNUnB+piogvSLlVHRXaCPEOTvtatPGLEDfadpzc1BUDRmt oyGnRJGLwNSWX84rTQ0N7yqoanGELCu2hSH1NP/S+lU217Bp4hK0kz6IwtloZ7+kdDGL917e1s+ ESEz04MP9XXqQgDwZbBWNTqOvxpMVc6mAYXE1HvPReSFhaXxOv6FrOOZzOYdm7YgH3khl1eOG0O UaqY//nnoChsNqnoAR/bg1mWv1N+4868Eck84QCq3t06yLpof/warRMHZc4VQ5fN7JH1Rg6pH4h eJzPtRt/F+RVIiRT02vQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFCZbpEPmsFfm4MlFT+MJ0xNsYrm1nl3+rX45WjcsSBzaZPQyyHb87/SJKxBxkZZoZd/IwyMA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e945:b0:295:f508:9d32 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-29b6bf3b83emr83186605ad.37.1763835292363; Sat, 22 Nov 2025 10:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2601:647:6881:9060:4cfa:6cea:94d3:bc41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-29b5b138bcbsm89004265ad.29.2025.11.22.10.14.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 22 Nov 2025 10:14:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 10:14:50 -0800 From: Cong Wang To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Jamal Hadi Salim , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@willsroot.io, jschung2@proton.me, savy@syst3mfailure.io Subject: Re: [Bug 220774] New: netem is broken in 6.18 Message-ID: References: <20251110123807.07ff5d89@phoenix> <20251121161322.1eb61823@phoenix.local> <20251121175556.26843d75@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251121175556.26843d75@kernel.org> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 05:55:56PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 16:13:22 -0800 Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 13:45:06 -0800 > > Cong Wang wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 07:52:37AM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > > > > > jschung2@proton.me: Can you please provide more details about what you > > > > are trying to do so we can see if a different approach can be > > > > prescribed? > > > > > > > > > > An alternative approach is to use eBPF qdisc to replace netem, but: > > > 1) I am not sure if we could duplicate and re-inject a packet in eBPF Qdisc > > > 2) I doubt everyone wants to write eBPF code when they already have a > > > working cmdline. > > > > > > BTW, Jamal, if your plan is to solve them one by one, even if it could work, > > > it wouldn't scale. There are still many users don't get hit by this > > > regression yet (not until hitting LTS or major distro). > > > > The bug still needs to be fixed. > > eBPF would still have the same kind of issues. > > I guess we forgot about mq.. IIRC mq doesn't come into play in > duplication, we should be able to just adjust the check to allow This is not true, I warned you and Jamal with precisely the mq+netem combination before applying the patch, both of you chose to ignore. > the mq+netem hierarchy? This would make the code even uglier, it is already ugly enough to hard-code and single out this case in the code. Not to mention there could be other combinations we don't know yet. We need to revert it and fix the original issue with changing the problematic duplication behavior. Regards, Cong