From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753472AbdL1M0Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2017 07:26:25 -0500 Received: from forward2j.cmail.yandex.net ([5.255.227.20]:35932 "EHLO forward2j.cmail.yandex.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751382AbdL1M0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Dec 2017 07:26:24 -0500 Authentication-Results: mxback11g.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.com.tr From: Ozgur Envelope-From: okaratas@yandex.com.tr To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Eric Biggers , LKML , syzkaller , Eric Dumazet , Kostya Serebryany , Alexander Potapenko , andreyknvl , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Tetsuo Handa , David Miller , Willem de Bruijn , Guenter Roeck , Stephan Mueller In-Reply-To: References: <20171222033229.GB26818@zzz.localdomain> <581031514458281@web9g.yandex.ru> Subject: Re: [RFC] syzbot process MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <503641514463979@web33o.yandex.ru> X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 15:26:19 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 28.12.2017, 14:45, "Dmitry Vyukov" : > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Ozgur wrote: >>  28.12.2017, 13:41, "Dmitry Vyukov" : >>>  On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: >>>>   On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>>>>   However, the cost is that it needs to understand statuses of bugs: >>>>>   most importantly, what commit fixes what bug. It also has support for >>>>>   marking a bug as "invalid", e.g. happened once but most likely was >>>>>   caused by a previous silent memory corruption. And support for marking >>>>>   bugs as duplicates of other bugs, i.e. the same root cause and will be >>>>>   fixed when the target bug is fixed. These simple rules are outlined in >>>>>   the footer of each report and also explained in more detail at the >>>>>   referenced link: >>>>> >>>>>   ---------------------------------- >>>>>   This bug is generated by a dumb bot. It may contain errors. >>>>>   See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for details. >>>>>   Direct all questions to syzkaller@googlegroups.com. >>>>>   Please credit me with: Reported-by: syzbot >>>>>   syzbot will keep track of this bug report. >>>>>   Once a fix for this bug is merged into any tree, reply to this email with: >>>>>   #syz fix: exact-commit-title >>>>>   If you want to test a patch for this bug, please reply with: >>>>>   #syz test: git://repo/address.git branch >>>>>   and provide the patch inline or as an attachment. >>>>>   To mark this as a duplicate of another syzbot report, please reply with: >>>>>   #syz dup: exact-subject-of-another-report >>>>>   If it's a one-off invalid bug report, please reply with: >>>>>   #syz invalid >>>>>   Note: if the crash happens again, it will cause creation of a new bug report. >>>>>   Note: all commands must start from beginning of the line in the email body. >>>>>   ---------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>>   Status tracking allows syzbot to (1) keep track of still unfixed bugs >>>>>   (more than half actually gets lost in LKML archives if nobody keeps >>>>>   track of them), (2) be able to ever report similarly looking crashes >>>>>   as new bugs in future, (3) be able to test fixes. >>>>> >>>>>   The problem is that these rules are mostly not followed. >>>> >>>>   As others mentioned, allowing a bug ID to be in the fix's commit message, >>>>   perhaps in the Reported-by line which syzbot already suggests to include, would >>>>   make things a bit easier. >>>> >>>>   But I think the larger problem is that people in the community don't have any >>>>   visibility into the statuses of the bugs, so they don't have any motivation to >>>>   manage the statuses. >>>> >>>>   Are you planning to make a dashboard app publicly available for upstream kernel >>>>   bugs being tracked by syzbot? I think it would be very useful for the >>>>   community, especially for finding more details about a bug, e.g. when was it >>>>   last seen, how often was it seen, has it been seen in multiple trees. Also for >>>>   finding duplicates which may not have been sent to the correct mailing list. >>> >>>  Hi Eric, >>> >>>  Good question. I would very much like to open the UI, and I hope to do >>>  it in near future, but we need to do some additional work to make it >>>  possible. The good news is that information is already accumulating >>>  and we can do pings, etc. >> >>  Hello Dmitry, >> >>  I think not useful to be a GUI, for example it can be console based ui we can conenct and get information and fixed patches. > > Hi Ozgur, Hello, > We will do web UI first as it's something that's already partially > there and syzbot itself is not a console process, it's a cloud > service. It's also handy because there are lots of contextual > information and in a web UI one can just just click links to navigate > or download a blob. Later we could do an API for console clients, etc > if there is an interest in developing these types of UIs. But > generally UI is not the main business of syzbot, it's only a side > thing that helps it achieve the main goal, so it's doesn't have a team > of people assigned to it. But you are welcome to contribute, it's all > open-source: > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/tree/master/dashboard/app I understand. >>  So syzbot is perfectly, I founded a patc last time :) >> >>  https://09738734946362323617.googlegroups.com/attach/3c6ef7059f77c/patch.txt?part=0.2&view=1&vt=ANaJVrFm49WFVkkKiomlnsrdfnv4P-0znjiC4agFB72ibq9_6iqg1rmZtw9-DxS5VvoOoKx8Ikl88sYEQQ45X0vjrwFkKDRaZELV-oU9DVmmrRAMSfStn24 >> >>  And, I have a my suggestions: >> >>  Please keep to short url addresses. > > Well, that's an URL generated by google groups, we don't have control > over it. You also received the patch as an attachment in the syzbot > email. I know, understand. sure. >>  and I think syzbot use to .txt file attached. >>  .txt is not good. > > Why are not .txt attachments good? What do you propose to use? I think I'm misunderstood that is good to have text output in a file but not useful if the file extension is ".txt" Not comfortable use it for mutt / vim and diff. I think needs to be an new extension, would be like this ".log" or ".syz" :) > Thanks > >>>>   syzbot also should be sending out reminders for bugs that are still open if the >>>>   crash is still occurring, and even moreso if there is a reproducer. >>> >>>  Agree. The reasons why this hasn't happen yet are: >>>  1. syzbot is being built up as it's running, I am overwhelmed with >>>  hundreds of bugs and also doing lots of work which may be not directly >>>  visible but important (e.g. improving quality of generated >>>  reproducers, increasing percent of cases when reproducers are created, >>>  improving bug title extraction logic, implementing patch testing by >>>  request, now this new Reported-by-based process, etc). >>>  2. Just sending an email for each open bug every week is simple, but I >>>  afraid it won't be warmly welcomed. The open questions are: how >>>  frequently syzbot should ping? should repro/no repro affect this? what >>>  to do if it stopped happening? stopped happenning for how long? and >>>  what if it happened just few times, so we can't really conclude if it >>>  still happens or not (but we've seen very bad races manifesting this >>>  way)? how should it interact with the following point? >>> >>>>   However, if the crash isn't still occurring, then I expect it will become >>>>   necessary to automatically invalidate the bug after some time, lest the list of >>>>   bugs grow without bound due to bugs that have already been fixed that no one has >>>>   time to debug to figure out exactly when/what the fix was, especially if there >>>>   is no reproducer. Or perhaps the bug was only in linux-next and only existed >>>>   due to a buggy patch which was dropped or modified before it reached mainline, >>>>   so there is no "fix" commit. >>> >>>  Good point. I think we will need to do this in some form in future. >>>  Again open questions: >>>   - what is the precise formula behind "isn't still occurring"? >>>   - should we only close "no repro" bugs? >>>   - should we re-test bugs with repro? (re-testing is not 100% precise, >>>  so we will lose some real subtle bugs this way) >>> >>>  Thanks