On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 09:52:24PM -0400, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 02:06:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 07:52:08PM +0530, Prithvi Tambewagh wrote: > > > Add documentation for the 'name' parameter in name_contains_dotdot() > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prithvi Tambewagh <activprithvi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Out of curiosity, could you describe the process that has lead to > > that patch? > > > > The reason why I'm asking is that there had been a truly ridiculous > > amount of identical patches, all dealing with exact same function. > > > > Odds of random coincedence are very low - there's quite lot of > > similar places, and AFAICS you are the 8th poster choosing the > > same one. > > > > I would expect that kind of response to a "kernel throws scary > > warnings on boot for reasonably common setups", but for a comment > > about a function being slightly wrong this kind of focus is > > strange. > > > > If that's some AI (s)tool responding to prompts along the lines of > > "I want to fix some kernel problem, find some low-hanging fruit > > and gimme a patch", we might be seeing a small-scale preview of > > a future DDoS with the same underlying mechanism... > > You do know that kernel-doc warns about this, right? > > $ ./scripts/kernel-doc -v -none include/linux/fs.h > [...] > Warning: include/linux/fs.h:3287 function parameter 'name' not described in 'name_contains_dotdot' > > It's the only warning in include/linux/fs.h. ; ./scripts/kernel-doc -v -none include/linux/*.h 2>&1|grep -c Warning.*function\ parameter 145 I rest my point. If one of those has managed to generate 8 duplicate patches (and the earliest one has landed in linux-next within a day) and people are still sending that stuff... I'd say we have a problem. Whatever underlying mechanism is in action, it seems to have the makings of a large DDoS. I'm not blaming the people sending that and I would really like to understand the mechanism behind this, er, synchronicity.
