Re: [syzbot] [net?] WARNING: locking bug in tcp_tsq_handler

[Eric Dumazet]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 5:06 AM Hillf Danton <hdanton@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 22:26:25 +0900 Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> >On Aug 25, 2026 / 14:45, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 14:44:35 +0900 Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> >> > On Aug 25, 2026 / 03:50, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I think 19bdb70c77d3 should be reverted.
> >> >
> >> > Just reverting the commit will reintroduce the other lockdep WARN that the
> >> > commit addressed. I hope to have another fix to avoid the WARN.
> >> >
> >> I do not think you know the root cause of that lockdep warn, so reverting
> >> 19bdb70c77d3 is the right thing to do because of [11, 12].
> >>
> >> [11] ffa1e7ada456 ("block: Make request_queue lockdep splats show up earlier")
> >> [12] Subject: Re: [PATCH] nbd: don't warn when reclassifying a busy socket lock
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260816014906.1149-1-hdanton@xxxxxxxx/
> >
> > I took a look in the commit [11] and the discussion [12], but couldn't follow
> > why the commit 19bdb70c77d3 should be reverted. Could you elaborate a bit more
> > about the reason you suggest the revert?
> >
> The Fixes tag in d532cddb6c60 proves Eric delivered a HBC, half baked croissant,
> to lore. And the nvme-tcp tucked in the HBC hints Eric copied something from
> somewhere. Finally the absence of ffa1e7ada456 in 19bdb70c77d3 proves it is
> worse than a HBC. Clear dude? Or go to read [12] again?

linux development is iterative, we do not submit a single patch fixing
1000 bugs at once.

I decided to ignore your rants a long time ago, as many others did.

How many bugs did you fix last year?