Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:32:22 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)
Message-ID: <20180124173222.GH16646@kroah.com>
References: <1515058705.7875.25.camel@gmx.de>
 <20180104095628.GA4407@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
 <CACT4Y+YB_p_p4ORbke1oZfkLSC8rnAD81Ra_fprsPSugGAQy8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87inchsl4h.fsf@xmission.com>
 <CACT4Y+ayTp5Ocz4Z8hN_gx7i-7gOeHvmLP93ekrE9f=R9gqaiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87efmrt6ul.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20180116071225.GJ8249@thunk.org>
 <CACT4Y+ZggEM7c9M1GLUNQPWhi5v+TknW0QKABeaqia93M_JCxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180124160438.0da2b219@alans-desktop>
 <87y3knyyo5.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y3knyyo5.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:06:02AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:34:01 +0100
> > Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> >> >> Outside of the bugs being considered as considered as security issues,
> >> >> the bugs syzbot finds are generally things that don't affect anyone in
> >> >> practice.  So are very low on the priority of things to get fixed.  
> >> 
> >> Not sure why are you saying this, but syzbot has found lots of
> >> hundreds of use-after-free's, out-of-bounds, information leaks,
> >> deadlocks, vm escapes, etc. They have very direct stability and
> >> security impact.
> >
> > Agreed - there may be some UI and presentation issues but it's found some
> > really nasty little bugs.
> 
> I am not certain it has always really found the bugs it hits.
> 
> My experience tends towards a bug report with too little information
> in the Oops to guess what went wrong, that I can not reproduce the
> issue locally, that the no can reproduce, that was produced on a weird
> tree, and with a reporter telling you they are only interested in
> testing fixes.
> 
> Which is a long way of saying if the UI issues are bad enough the issue
> can not be identified in the code I am not certain we have actually
> found a bug.
> 
> So while I can see lots of potential in syzbot.  I can't say if the it
> is greater potential to get bugs fixed or to annoy developers with
> complaints they can't do anything about.

I'm with Alan here, syzbot has found lots of nasty bugs in the areas of
the kernel I maintain.  Many of which are still on my TODO list to fix :)

So yes, it's annoying to me at times as well, but it is good work here,
and I hope to see it continue.

greg k-h