From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [62.89.141.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72511111BF; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 21:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749071514; cv=none; b=mTtV1Jd4G1NTeHjJtgUtwcwNpm1RN+3QN2Spwf/MntSvTPoUsnqJa2Xo4BCmYIlmDkH8mry9T7tZLWr5IfZhz2oWJi/oFyWr4tcbM7bgPiSgt6bFhOQaTYi7c1/DiOVAy72DPiJe7/PK5234cV7a3LcQAaDBUu9X7jen7LY/yH8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749071514; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hLLxmyMhMOaQGxp9k0KLq1c/t6gV0P33NLDka6zpeiI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=npGhK7y5xd57LZc7LURFtUeZHkzuU5i9jSvfIsRuae8/tDP+Au75eloNByPuG7J1yEvE3ODfLecBafdmKakoTb5TCLdicOnpy/2bIlggBMIdqIYKVxfuBNBk7oX7d+KsrQUa725mBNUAei7PHETXa2dBf7pty2GU/GdcWKfSoMI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b=EWj/Z51u; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b="EWj/Z51u" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.org.uk; s=zeniv-20220401; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=NBbcSq8GSGLJxMN7JRM3JgBCfklD0XZCUA2hYzChRtY=; b=EWj/Z51uEX8ppxEEgY3sAQm8mR 7VB4v+2w7EWnMgLNTRAgpSKG88cFepcWBsckF0VnGbBXKzJFTzt3IGpeTrtVzeBNn38kLu0f7dpzH fJhMgYVyQRN0dm8EZiG+rC+GxmqUqlGj09rpaqnHIML/Ag/3MhkVylFrqdk6Kt2Z2R9fkpKRQYoQz HUe/RusS0ScBrR4K31+kc/A0QvEmrgUwgHHcEBKDviD9OEyjWVyiybvit8XctgSEXiZ4W8X0A75Wp QeLtBUYtK7n9OUnXcI5JTjM0m8coH56/bKg/uk+5wbsCoSLNT5xUCpX4Z74BJkNGJ8m26NC5aDxY+ PSVSoQ1g==; Received: from viro by zeniv.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uMvOm-0000000BmCU-234o; Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:11:48 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:11:48 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jan Kara , Christian Brauner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luka Subject: Re: [Bug] possible deadlock in vfs_rmdir in Linux kernel v6.12 Message-ID: <20250604211148.GJ299672@ZenIV> References: <20250604-quark-gastprofessor-9ac119a48aa1@brauner> <20250604-alluring-resourceful-salamander-6561ff@lemur> <20250604-daft-nondescript-junglefowl-0abd5a@lemur> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: Al Viro On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:39:20PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 04:11:21PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > Yes, hence my question. I think it's just a bad medium. It's actually the kind > > of thing that bugzilla is okay to use for -- create a bug with attachments and > > report it to the list, so maybe the original author can use that instead of > > pastebin sites? > > The "author" looks to be a bot, frankly. At best yet-another-incompetent > user of "my modified version of syzkaller". There's no signal here, > would recommend just banning. FWIW, I suspect that we ought to document that *anything* (bug reports, patches, etc.) sent should be reachable without the need to run javascript or any similar crap. Not sure what would be the best place for that, though... Seriously, this is pretty much on the same level as "don't send me a binary as reproducer - I'm not going to run it". Folks on these lists are fairly tempting as targets; betting on the sandbox quality in chromium/firepox/whatnot... sorry, no. *IF* hastebin really produces crap that can't be accessed without interpreter of some sort, just bounce any mail that contains such links with the obvious explanation.