On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 10:00:28AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > I agree with you here, and we could slowly start marking those shared accesses > as racy, but bots spitting false-positivies all the time doesn't help much, > other than taking somebody's else time to look into the report. > > Taking as example one case in the previous report, where the report complained > about concurrent bp->b_addr access during the buffer instantiation. I'd like to understand that one a bit more. It might be because the validator doesn't understand a semaphore used as lock is a lock, but I'll follow up there. > So, I think Dave has a point too. Like what happens with syzkaller > and random people reporting random syzkaller warnings. > > While I appreciate the reports too, I think it would be fair for the reporters > to spend some time to at least craft a RFC patch fixing the warning. Well, it was polite mails about their finding, which I find useful. If we got a huge amount of spam that might be different.
