Received: by 2002:a5d:9c59:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 25csp1419426iof; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:23:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxro/y1vj1b1uTiHv6D5Q+Xu9aWHNvBrVoXN+EB1zb3/nuVktyNvajCaKMr+J4ZbMRoY5oh X-Received: by 2002:a63:8041:0:b0:3fc:6bdc:7320 with SMTP id j62-20020a638041000000b003fc6bdc7320mr25129657pgd.8.1654604588883; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 05:23:08 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1654604588; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ocmDTm04QcwldtJ5DuhnYcKRRP0xa1qDQ1uExd9158kwg+XU1yWv/1jqiK1ub1BrAz jklcYGYIl5fY+IHDgVTMO24ufmbiKEJHm322XIiYOiQ1KuU5F34hMrj91l3MtY+e0TZy AL4lW+AHyq+9xa885CHTIhpn5wZX/i65sy2QuKyH9+vH+R5/IFWYKNIqueRS2/TpSCky W82xy8gD/91J1ASIGIgS3YucoO/Fc2I7WfsCzpEpb6Gaalpmuf0GdquHVJS6tIRaFylv f30BBXzPD5l0i2IYhfxMSbyhkj8v7rbdJTLYqKhLbmS6XuqpvAhJEgVaxaviLbAxR4ph awuA== 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-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature:dkim-signature; bh=O8/KOd5RYhzrnOAPVQE4xuS4q6J8PzmLXIB3TWqGbFM=; b=HyqiJkWzZgHOOk9UOQL0Li2+Yybq6PXdwEFc3CoiHazG2bzf+oy0oxNfNjZ5pfrNsv oRbepC1nQemX3f7hVjS62OvsO9pDFz6eDy677JD0JnTEo0JI7888/gqORhWjp7C8FQgb QDMzOAXyaDi6n0KmGy1m2bA1CFjwMzVGbu5J43jjlkGAInSMWeoSgfO/5VpZstXaXdbT GLbnCGLwC1hkCaKJWXES8rtQN4cBogddA1OB/IY8mu3J5M1RuFwQRCG5SOLhwAdny5/T T24OjUq07tmF9vWUqxel6LeOEn6av2lnTFS1Mv3RKdfbdMQNAtQOHV425zv8CKREYy0l RvOw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=NEs8zRvI; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x141-20020a627c93000000b005183825722fsi22559505pfc.132.2022.06.07.05.22.55; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 05:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=NEs8zRvI; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.cz; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240327AbiFGJyg (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:54:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34432 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233046AbiFGJye (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2022 05:54:34 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF3954BD6; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 02:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4756D1F96B; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:54:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1654595671; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=O8/KOd5RYhzrnOAPVQE4xuS4q6J8PzmLXIB3TWqGbFM=; b=NEs8zRvIERoG5fRYWA54xWuP8i8LaG63Rfdtf7qBjO8A1VSxWCBA4alfAHU+0qAbOEd3Ot CP787/d5R1NJYGi7vECKxq1ljc9ewslFTPeXoBzR2njoZyq0yiImPH4QQU5w7AgxuQkRuF kuh2D6lbIpsx3S5au3aTxAsXgEFkuaI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1654595671; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=O8/KOd5RYhzrnOAPVQE4xuS4q6J8PzmLXIB3TWqGbFM=; b=P38gmVGqg0HxMFB2/Ayh0jQtyPMu11PbOdDqv8hxy5f/eOFUB92Wkk7OCbTpHNoNHLhnXE 1992k22RkQ7QlPCA== Received: from quack3.suse.cz (unknown [10.163.28.18]) (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 2CA262C141; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 09:54:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack3.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A61C5A0633; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 11:54:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 11:54:30 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Yu Kuai Cc: Jan Kara , 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: <20220607095430.kac5jgzm2gvd7x3c@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> <20220523152516.7sr247i3bzwhr44w@quack3.lan> <21cd1c49-838a-7f03-ab13-9a4f2ac65979@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <21cd1c49-838a-7f03-ab13-9a4f2ac65979@huawei.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham 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 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. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR