Received: by 2002:ac2:464d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id s13csp3581067lfo; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyX2gX69eEYu0lqkM3QxPtk3o8tozmBHL63HamFpV2bCoHliC8d62XyW7MdiIYci+oim1s4 X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4b0c:b0:1e0:96b:c3fe with SMTP id lx12-20020a17090b4b0c00b001e0096bc3femr16266713pjb.212.1653319544246; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1653319544; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jWUTdrZige61vqBjeDdD3BZYcqWoB0onAiDLYYMObMddM9liIthVdDwMqlU/Glldxh 3mD2OrDEbtqQirPNnV8MB6weR22OQ+WpXjmLhOyu4Q2rGchKeVZ41RMHhDS+5ul0LGw/ +t6FHfjLrDbgXXlBfbX+Hqrrm4LVi5wXCIcBnnzP23V5Ubp99YwEQhwznzrSLN1BBo10 wMA46WjXpsOC9nb2p+xBkoqovxAdpnpoweLB8Ms2qv1GRib+YFdQHVmkf7Witky2fBsH TbjE809NUrP2z20Dk3cfMHB7Ag2Fk8IGB9HhCzKG6ewJvok6qxIl86w9krMd7onc9Rnp qJCw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=ny3U7T9TPhDthVWzP+Xlh6KkiteRPaSckBn6MYhTDIU=; b=MN9BmJogXQa6mEXruR1CXRpHSXKLrREt6IPx8SEV9tCcrrKVHK6JPG+5llPH9qJnmu 2VDzqDeyWEi7uItAiOH4m4Lb17M7xNcwUmfIz0yI+5D03bXqfCXNSOj98BusP464Z1mp ghuPX+XZa6Kvs/qjE8ynPL60A3aHZwe6Kkn2GQA0mWWqGu0U0/hxWkaUFYEnfCTgiqak xHa3LuvwVfIzeI3sys7fGDWgqTZZnZLtNuxqWvYSWze+e1PWzbaXoMPC2iM0j49O7M16 wO3U1I4NC9ER0SC/+qbZX4K/S6B8qvvWv6mRR/yL+fZ41ml0LzMd4hopZztwO+/5hUng ZY4A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=mKN9NwBT; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=izmLbHLP; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net. [23.128.96.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f18-20020a056a001ad200b0050a502dd307si3344477pfv.127.2022.05.23.08.25.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 23 May 2022 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=mKN9NwBT; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=izmLbHLP; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756E35E14E; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237853AbiEWPZ1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 23 May 2022 11:25:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33054 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237797AbiEWPZU (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2022 11:25:20 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAE4A5DD16; Mon, 23 May 2022 08:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B24A210E3; Mon, 23 May 2022 15:25:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1653319518; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ny3U7T9TPhDthVWzP+Xlh6KkiteRPaSckBn6MYhTDIU=; b=mKN9NwBTUIN9be1aZZzF4LcEKRx8m2Wykw27cuNyAUv73E3U9F/40UzXtB8W4/QKjV+zgd zBMGoVIdmznYx+bO/lmkrpn3sGP8x2Km7Ob71s7HL1aE70G+sjbwLjsIZwnDPIk6OQXEHX a9s/i7kRTNUk/o1voCK0VEHuTZUf4aQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1653319518; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ny3U7T9TPhDthVWzP+Xlh6KkiteRPaSckBn6MYhTDIU=; b=izmLbHLPWF4IU0EhHRLxiFpAoMulTKzNYz9PT/LAHestmYQguQTawM64+qCRl1XhxW2WQE I3K35XnPK4ngMoAg== Received: from quack3.suse.cz (unknown [10.100.224.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0420A2C141; Mon, 23 May 2022 15:25:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack3.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 162EEA0632; Mon, 23 May 2022 17:25:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 17:25:16 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: "yukuai (C)" Cc: Jan Kara , "yukuai (C)" , paolo.valente@linaro.org, tj@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/3] support concurrent sync io for bfq on a specail occasion Message-ID: <20220523152516.7sr247i3bzwhr44w@quack3.lan> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25f6703e-9e10-75d9-a893-6df1e6b75254@kernel.dk> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 23-05-22 06:36:58, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/23/22 2:59 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 23-05-22 09:10:38, yukuai (C) wrote: > >> ? 2022/05/21 20:21, Jens Axboe ??: > >>> On 5/21/22 1:22 AM, yukuai (C) wrote: > >>>> ? 2022/05/14 17:29, yukuai (C) ??: > >>>>> ? 2022/05/05 9:00, yukuai (C) ??: > >>>>>> Hi, Paolo > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you take a look at this patchset? It has been quite a long time > >>>>>> since we spotted this problem... > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> friendly ping ... > >>>> friendly ping ... > >>> > >>> I can't speak for Paolo, but I've mentioned before that the majority > >>> of your messages end up in my spam. That's still the case, in fact > >>> I just marked maybe 10 of them as not spam. > >>> > >>> You really need to get this issued sorted out, or you will continue > >>> to have patches ignore because folks may simply not see them. > >>> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for your notice. > >> > >> Is it just me or do you see someone else's messages from *huawei.com > >> end up in spam? I tried to seek help from our IT support, however, they > >> didn't find anything unusual... > > > > So actually I have noticed that a lot of (valid) email from huawei.com (not > > just you) ends up in the spam mailbox. For me direct messages usually pass > > (likely matching SPF records for originating mail server save the email > > from going to spam) but messages going through mailing lists are flagged as > > spam because the emails are missing valid DKIM signature but huawei.com > > DMARC config says there should be DKIM signature (even direct messages are > > missing DKIM so this does not seem as a mailing list configuration issue). > > So this seems as some misconfiguration of the mails on huawei.com side > > (likely missing DKIM signing of outgoing email). > > SPF/DKIM was indeed a problem earlier for yukaui patches, but I don't > see that anymore. Maybe it's still an issue for some emails, from them > or Huawei in general? 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 -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR