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 06:13:48PM +0100, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> 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?

Uh, that's already what I added :facepalm: Thankfully, vacation is only
hours away... :)

> 
> > 
> > > > > 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>
> > > > ...