[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240517012647.GN2118490@ZenIV>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 02:26:47 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fs: fix unintentional arithmetic wraparound in offset
calculation
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:13:22AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:29:06AM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> > overflow sanitizer we encounter this report:
>
> why do you keep saying it's unintentional? it's clearly intended.
Because they are short on actual bugs to be found by their tooling
and attempt to inflate the sound/noise rate; therefore, every time
when overflow _IS_ handled correctly, it must have been an accident -
we couldn't have possibly done the analysis correctly. And if somebody
insists that they _are_ capable of basic math, they must be dishonest.
So... "unintentional" it's going to be.
<southpark> Math is hard, mmkay? </southpark>
Al, more than slightly annoyed by that aspect of the entire thing...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists