linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] upstream boot error: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference in __dabt

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+ZrwXB1W31Rr7rUUOoW15YbKfnC0khY9KnNk8FTf5uQnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:43:08 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     syzkaller@...glegroups.com, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, gary@...yguo.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        ojeda@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, wedsonaf@...il.com,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] upstream boot error: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL
 pointer dereference in __dabt_svc

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 12:30, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> > In which of the dozens of kernel testing systems? ;)
> > And also in heads of thousands of kernel developers and users?
> > All of them use get_maintainer.pl.
>
> I am aware, but `get_maintainer.pl` is fine as it is -- we still want
> to know about things that touch things that mention Rust in general,
> so that we can possibly be helpful to others, especially early on.
>
> However, if a bot is testing the kernel with Rust actually disabled at
> runtime, what I am saying is that the chance that it has something to
> do with Rust is quite low, especially if matched via `K:` rather than
> `F:`. Thus my request.
>
> Now, it could be nice to have some logic like that in
> `get_maintainer.pl` encoded for all bots to filter things out based on
> the kernel config and the type of match; but otherwise, yes, the bots
> would need to add the logic.
>
> Cc'ing Joe in case this is already possible in `get_maintainer.pl` or
> whether there could be a better approach.

I understand your intentions and they make sense.
But adding this logic to syzbot won't help thousands of users of
get_maintainer.pl and dozens of other testing systems. There also will
be a bit of get_maintainer.pl inside of syzbot code, so now all kernel
developers will need to be aware of it and also submit changes to
syzbot when they want to change maintainers logic.

I think this also equally applies to all other users of K:.
And a number of them had similar complaints re how K; works.

I am thinking if K: should actually apply just to patches and be
ignored for source files?
If there are files that belong to "rust" (or "bpf" or any other user
of K:), then I think these should be just listed explicitly in the
subsystem (that should be a limited set of files that can be
enumerated with wildcards).
It's also reasonable to apply K: to patches.
But if a random source file happened to mention "rust" somewhere once,
I am not sure you want to be CCed on all issues in that file.
Does it sound reasonable?