Re: [syzbot] WARNING in do_mkdirat

[Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>]

On 11 Dec 2022 08:39:18 +0000 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:56:12PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > On 11 Dec 2022 02:52:57 +0000 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > > 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@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
L:	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
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...
>