On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 10:21 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:26 PM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 4:11 PM Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 5:10 PM syzbot > > > <syzbot+477d8d8901756d1cbba1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > syzbot has tested the proposed patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue: > > > > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+477d8d8901756d1cbba1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > Tested on: > > > > > > > > commit: 8e9b46c4 ovl: do not encode lower fh with upper sb_wri.. > > > > git tree: https://github.com/amir73il/linux.git ovl_want_write > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=10d10ffa680000 > > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=bb54ecdfa197f132 > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=477d8d8901756d1cbba1 > > > > compiler: gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.40 > > > > > > It looks like the fix was submitted without the Reported-by tag, so > > > syzkaller doesn't recognize that the fix has landed... I'll tell > > > syzkaller now which commit the fix is supposed to be in, please > > > correct me if this is wrong: > > > > > > #syz fix: ovl: do not encode lower fh with upper sb_writers held > > > > (Ah, and just for the record: I hadn't realized when writing this that > > the fix was actually in a newer version of the same patch... "git > > That is correct. > I am very thankful for syzbot with helping me catch bugs during development > and I would gladly attribute the bot and its owners, but I don't that > Reported-and-tested-by is an adequate tag for a bug that never existed as > far as git history. > > Even Tested-by: syzbot could be misleading to stable kernel bots > that may conclude that the patch is a fix that needs to apply to stable. > > I am open to suggestions. > > Also maybe > > #syz correction: > > To tell syzbot we are not fixing a bug in upstream, but in a previous > version of a patch that it had tested. Sorry, I think I got that wrong; the syzbot manual (https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#rebuilt-treesamended-patches) instead suggests: "First, adding Reported-by tags to amended commits may be misleading. A Reported-by tag suggests that the commit fixes a bug in some previous commit, but here it's not the case (it only fixes a bug in a previous version of itself which is not in the tree). In such case it's recommended to include a Tested-by or a Reviewed-by tag with the hash instead. Technically, syzbot accepts any tag, so With-inputs-from would work too." > > range-diff 44ef23e481b02df2f17599a24f81cf0045dc5256~1..44ef23e481b02df2f17599a24f81cf0045dc5256 > > 5b02bfc1e7e3811c5bf7f0fa626a0694d0dbbd77~1..5b02bfc1e7e3811c5bf7f0fa626a0694d0dbbd77" > > shows an added "ovl_get_index_name", I guess that's the fix?) > > No, that added ovl_get_index_name() seems like a fluke of the range-diff tool. > All the revisions of this patch always had this same minor change in this line: Ah, bleh, of course. I haven't used range-diff in a while and misread the output...
