On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:26:47AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > 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... Yes, some of the patches I've seen floating past actually seem nice, but the vast majority just seem like make-work. And the tone is definitely inappropriate.
