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: <CACT4Y+YXPjTyW52Kjq7L6fJdT4ypnboRq0rS=yZ857NseSUPQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:54:00 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: syzcaller patch postings...

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net> wrote:
> 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.

Nice. But unfortunately the current mailing technology we use allows
very limited set of headers and no custom headers:
https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/standard/go/mail/mail-with-headers-attachments
So while possible, it would require very significant rework...

What's the Patchwork 2's new checks infrastructure?
If it will still remain a problem (hopefully not), then maybe it's
possible to blacklist syzbot address from creating new patches. syzbot
can do a lot, but so far does not also generate fixes for the bugs it
discovers :)