From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD295C43441 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0FD20851 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TQDuDP+M" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4D0FD20851 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729004AbeKTVhN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:37:13 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57236 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727728AbeKTVhM (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:37:12 -0500 Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (cpe-71-70-156-158.nc.res.rr.com [71.70.156.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1839120831; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:08:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1542712117; bh=UV+yE0YogWqKDqfB/TSo7Crjtsx4uvvImF+ulT1Krwc=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TQDuDP+MaC3Fun5xAurWyh4t2kg4s2F5RgxdUcpNH0dJiQDuFuXU9Rb7IxAMKvxIn LsJDXxaz69C9xNcTQ+Plg0XiWpuIxXv7K27uGt8cI99+jqkWJf2GUIaB0Px1i+jJ2w cAF2x+kfiViDwesnr/CytisMkLFF54XhZ0rgonoU= Message-ID: Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in locks_delete_block From: Jeff Layton To: Dmitry Vyukov , Bruce Fields Cc: NeilBrown , syzbot , linux-fsdevel , LKML , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Al Viro Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 06:08:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <000000000000222b58057a7d9f39@google.com> <9d9ad7f2781bf15af4bd6ccc9feee35c7cd17979.camel@kernel.org> <87bm6svhhl.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87bm6pewnm.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181117140356.GA29895@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.2 (3.30.2-2.fc29) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 07:57 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Bruce Fields wrote: > > 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. > > I see. It may also be picked by scripts that detects patches that need > to be backported to stable because of the "Reported-by: syzbot" tag. > This is somewhat unfortunate. > > There is no problem parsing another tag on syzbot side. Does Tested-by > look good to you? If it found a bug in the patch and then it was > fixed, Tested-by looks reasonable. And we also detect > Reported-and-tested-by already because that's what syzbot suggests > after it tested a proposed fix for a bug. > > I am somewhat concerned how to spread this information across all > kernel developers. There is effectively no way to do this. We can't > expect people to read docs, they generally don't. I guess I just > document this at "See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information" and > then we can point other people there if/when this concern pops up > again. Tested-by sounds like it might be a reasonable fit. I'll change the patch in my tree to read that way. Thanks, -- Jeff Layton