On 11 Dec 2022 08:39:18 +0000 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:56:12PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On 11 Dec 2022 02:52:57 +0000 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 06:30:22PM -0800, syzbot wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer is still triggering an issue: > > > > WARNING in done_path_create > > > > > > How many times does it need to be repeated that ANY BUG REPORTS INVOLVING NTFS3 IN > > > REPRODUCER NEED TO BE CCED TO MAINTAINERS OF NTFS3? > > > > > > I'm done with any syzbot output. From now on it's getting triaged > > > straight to /dev/null here. > > > > Calm downnnnnn Sir even if this is not the east ender style. > > > > Frankly no interest here at all wasting any network bandwidth just to get you > > interrupted if it would take less than 72 hours to discover one of the beatles > > you created. And actually more than double check is needed to ensure who > > did that. > > The first iterations of the same suggestion had been a lot calmer... > One of the earlier examples: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YzEJ2D8kga+ZRDZx@ZenIV/ > And I distinctly remember similar attempts from other folks. > > It's really a matter of triage; as it is, syzkaller folks are > expecting that any mail from the bot will be looked into by everyone > on fsdevel, on the off-chance that it's relevant for them. What's FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure) M: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> L: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx S: Maintained F: fs/* F: include/linux/fs.h F: include/linux/fs_types.h F: include/uapi/linux/fs.h F: include/uapi/linux/openat2.h _> ls fs/* | grep ntfs fs/ntfs: ntfs.h fs/ntfs3: fsntfs.c ntfs.h ntfs_fs.h Why not change what you really want to cover instead of complaining once more and opting to triage? > more, it's not just "read the mail" - information in the mail body > is next to useless in such situations. So you are asking to > * start a browser > * cut'n'paste the URL from MUA > * dig around in the files linked to the damn thing > ... all of that for an fs maintainer to see if his filesystem is > even present? Seriously? For each syzbot fsdevel posting? > > I would have looked at it anyway; granted, seeing ntfs3 I'd chalked > it up to ntfs bugs (fs/ntfs3 has not been there for long and it didn't get > outright memory corruptors beaten out of it yet). > > But how the bleeding hell are ntfs folks supposed to guess that > this report might be relevant for them? Same for XFS, ext4, orangefs, > et sodding cetera - and for most of those any of such reports would've > ended up wasted time for the good and simple reasons that it's not > any fs they'd been involved with. > > What really pisses me off is that on the sending side the > required check is trivial - if you are going to fuzz a filesystem, > put a note into report, preferably in subject. Sure, it's your > code, you get to decide what to spend your time upon (you == syzkaller > maintainers). But please keep in mind that for recepients it's > a lot of recurring work, worthless for the majority of those who > end up bothering with it. Every time they receive a mail from > that source. > > Ignore polite suggestions enough times, earn a mix of > impolite ones and .procmailrc recipes, it's that simple... >
