Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:38:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+YH3Z1q9aVTUgTbTPfDp2ao-z=YAjzBGU5HsjGJ-utgeg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180626141602.GA17788@thunk.org>

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:54:53PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> I hope we can accept NOW either "reviving linux-next.git" or "allowing debug printk()
>> patches for linux.git". For example, "INFO: task hung in __sb_start_write" got 900
>> crashes in 81 days but still unable to find a reproducer. Dmitry tried to reproduce
>> locally with debug printk() patches but not yet successful. I think that testing with
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f91e1c82-9693-cca3-4ab7-ecd9d9881fb4@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
>> on linux.git or linux-next.git is the only realistic way for debugging this bug.
>> More we postpone revival of the linux-next, more syzbot reports we will get...
>
> Here's a proposal for adding linux-next back:
>
> *) Subsystems or maintainers need to have a way to opt out of getting
>    spammed with Syzkaller reports that have no reproducer.  More often
>    than not, they are not actionable, and just annoy the maintainers,
>    with the net result that they tune out all Syzkaller reports as
>    noise.

False. You can count yourself. 2/3 are actionable and fixed.

This also makes the following point ungrounded.

> *) Email reports for failures on linux-next that correspond to known
>    failures on mainline should be suppressed.  Another way of doing
>    this would be to only report a problem found by a specific
>    reproducer to the mailing list unless the recipient has agreed to
>    be spammed by Syskaller noise.
>
> And please please please, Syzkaller needs to figure out how to do
> bisection runs once you have a reproducer.
>
>                                                 - Ted