From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58668 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757848AbcH3LLR (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:11:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:09:55 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Lukas Lueg Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Multiple bugs found by fuzzing BTRFS Message-ID: <20160830110955.GA16983@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <20160829170220.GY16983@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:47:10PM +0200, Lukas Lueg wrote: > I'll report new issues to bz as they turn up from the current round > only if they represent a yet unreported kind of problem (e.g. there > are stack-based buffer over- and underruns lurking, I lost them due to > a bug in my setup, though). The next round will be much faster as I've > now vastly improved my automatic bug triage and fuzzing speed. > > I lost interest once after bugs went unanswered - there are bugs still > open and unanswered from 2015/04. I hope this won't be a problem this > time. Yeah, the lack if replies is unfortunate and happens. There's a disproportion between number of people who report bugs and who go through them and fix. I personally look out for the fuzzing bugs as they usually come with an image and it's easy to create a testcase from them, reproducible bugs also tend to get fixes faster. I must have missed the bugs though, there are 3 fuzzed images, reported by you in bugs 96971, 97191 and 97271. I see two more (97031 and 97021) and will look into them.