netdev - Re: syzcaller patch postings...

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: <87mv01i216.fsf@linkitivity.dja.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:31:33 +1100
From:   Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: syzcaller patch postings...

Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 16:47 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> I have to mention this now before it gets out of control.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask that syzkaller stop posting the patch it is
>>> testing when it posts to netdev.
>>
>> There is an open issue on this topic:
>>
>> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/526
>>
>> The current behaviour is that syzbot replies to all get_maintainer.pl
>> recipients after testing a patch, regardless of the test submission
>> recipient list, the idea was instead to respect such list.
>
>
> Hi David, Florian, Paolo,
>
> Didn't realize it triggers patchwork. This wasn't intentional, sorry.

A little-publicised and incorrectly-documented(!) feature of Patchwork
is that it supports some email headers. In particular, if you include an
"X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore" header, the mail will not be parsed by
Patchwork.

This will stop it being recorded as a patch. Unfortunately it will also
stop it being recorded as a comment - I don't know if that's an issue in
this case. Maybe we can set you up with Patchwork 2's new checks
infrastructure instead.

>
> Do I understand it correctly that if syzbot replies to the CC list
> that was in the testing request, it will resolve the problem? So if
> netdev wasn't in CC, it will not be added to CC.
>
> I will go and fix it now.