Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Simulate branches to prune based on range violations

[Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 03:09:10PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:50:34AM +0100, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:14:48PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 11:54:43PM +0100, Paul Chaignon wrote:

[...]

> > Yes, that's definitely a good point. We probably don't even want to
> > backport this to stable kernels (at least not until we've built more
> > confidence via syzbot). We'll drop the tag.
> 
> I was actually hoping to get it into stable as soon as it merged, heh,
> but make sense.
> 
> You would have to actively reply the AUTOSEL selection email sent to you
> once this merged though, even without the fixes tag it would still
> likely bit picked up; I'm not sure the exact AUTOSEL criteria and it
> seem LLM-based right now, but given this says "fix" and "syzbot" I doubt
> it will overlook this.

That makes me think Checkpatch will likely complain about the missing
tag as soon as I repost without it, right? Given I'll need to answer to
the AUTOSEL email anyway, maybe it makes sense to keep a Fixes tag.
Would a Fixes: 5f99f312bd3b ("bpf: add register bounds sanity checks
and sanitization") make more sense here?

> 
> > > > Reported-by: syzbot+c950cc277150935cc0b5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c950cc277150935cc0b5
> > > > Co-developed-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@gmail.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Harishankar Vishwanathan <harishankar.vishwanathan@gmail.com>
> > > ...