From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:53522 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726034AbeKRAUm (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2018 19:20:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:03:56 -0500 From: Bruce Fields To: Jeff Layton Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , NeilBrown , syzbot , linux-fsdevel , LKML , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Al Viro Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in locks_delete_block Message-ID: <20181117140356.GA29895@fieldses.org> References: <000000000000222b58057a7d9f39@google.com> <9d9ad7f2781bf15af4bd6ccc9feee35c7cd17979.camel@kernel.org> <87bm6svhhl.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87bm6pewnm.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 08:33:27AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, Dmitry. I've added the tag to the patch in > my tree. It should show up in linux-next soon. > > I still find it a little misleading to say that syzbot reported a bug > when it actually found a bug inside an earlier version of the patch, but > I'll just learn to get over it. The usual tag for someone that found a bug in an earlier version of a patch would be Reviewed-by:. Is there any reason we can't use that here? The "syzbot+..." email should be enough on its own, I can't see a reason why their scripts would need to require a particular tag. Or maybe we could use Tested-by:, or some other tag made up for this case? I do worry that someone who sees "Reported-by:..." might for example mistakenly assume that it would help to backport that patch if they see a similar-looking oops. --b.