On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:09 PM Oliver Neukum <oneu...@suse.com> wrote: > > Am Montag, den 19.08.2019, 14:43 +0200 schrieb Andrey Konovalov: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:37 PM Oliver Neukum <oneu...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > The original error was a divide by zero. The first fix fixed that > > > but still another error showed up. If I propose a fix there are > > > other possibilities besides it working. > > > > > > I could have no effect on the original bug or my fix breaks > > > something else and KASAN is making no difference between > > > those cases. > > > > I think you mean syzbot here and not KASAN. Do I understand correctly, > > that you're saying that the original report was > > Yes, sorry syzbot. > > > divide-by-zero, but > > when you requested to test the patch the reproducer triggered a > > use-after-free, and syzbot didn't treat the patch you provided as a > > correct fix? > > No, obviously there is still a bug. What I would like syzbot to have > would be a third category: inconclusive. > Seeing another bug instead may also mean the first bug struck > before the second could ever happen. We just lack data to tell.
OK, I see. The exact words that syzbot uses in this case are "syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer still triggered crash". What would you like to see instead?
