On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 07:20:15PM +0200, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 11:14 PM 'Dave Chinner' via syzkaller-bugs > <syzkaller-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [cc linux-block, Christoph] > > > > Another iomap-blockdev related issue. > > > > #syz set subsystems: block > > > > syzbot developers: Please review how you are classifying subsystems, > > this is the third false XFS classification in 24 hours. > > The reason why syzbot marked this report as xfs is that, per > MAINTAINERS, fs/iomap/ points to linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I can > adjust the rules syzbot uses so that these are routed to "block". > > But should MAINTAINERS actually also not relate IOMAP FILESYSTEM > LIBRARY with xfs in this case? I'd tag it with iomap, as it's a different subsystem just sharing the mailing list. We also have iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for both the iommu and dma-mapping subsystems as a similar example. But what's also important for issues like this is that often the called library code (in this case iomap) if often not, or only partially at fault. So capturing the calling context (in this case block) might also be useful. And to get out of these meta discussions: I'll look into the actual issues in a bit, I'll try to find time despite travelling.
