linux-kernel - Re: dangers of bots on the mailing lists was Re: divide error in ___bpf_prog

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:09:30 -0500
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: dangers of bots on the mailing lists was Re: divide error in
 ___bpf_prog_run

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:21:13PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 
> If syzkaller can only test one tree than linux-next should be the one.

Well, there's been some controversy about that.  The problem is that
it's often not clear if this is long-standing bug, or a bug which is
in a particular subsystem tree --- and if so, *which* subsystem tree,
etc.  So it gets blasted to linux-kernel, and to get_maintainer.pl,
which is often not accurate --- since the location of the crash
doesn't necessarily point out where the problem originated, and hence
who should look at the syzbot report.  And so this has caused
some.... irritation.

> There is some value of testing stable trees, but any developer
> will first ask for a reproducer in the latest, so usefulness of
> reporting such bugs will be limited.

What I suggested was to test Linus's tree, and then when a problem is
found, and syzkaller has a reliable repro, to *then* try to see if it
*also* shows up in the LTS kernels.

					- Ted