linux-kernel - Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CACT4Y+aUTzKuxM5W5kMJF_wNLj=6WH6FMv41mR2g8zeVB=L0Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:20:49 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> When I made the complaint it came to me and to messages on lkml as
> .log.  With Content-Type: Application/Octent-stream.

Where was that? If I am not mistaken you actually didn't. I
triple-checked my inbox and searched internet. The only references to
Content-Type from you I can find are in this thread. And the are "Like
Content-type" and "Not content-type in the emails". I simply was not
aware of the problem, and I did not understand these comment because
they don't explain the problem. The only discussion that happened
around Content-Type is this:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller/2nVn_XkVhEE/7DjzSA2jCgAJ
This is proposal to give files .syz extension, which does not look
right to me and it a different topic anyway.

> That is a bloody mess that wastes peoples time.  If it is fixed good,
> it certainly was not fixed at that point.
>
> But it is much more than any single issue.  You get defensive when
> people critisize syzbot.  Instead of recognizing it's failings.