From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
syzbot <syzbot+1505c80c74256c6118a5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in sys_sendfile64 (2)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:37:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190313163701.GE672@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+ZQD=raWY4Tp8nrUcpAAbwRt0D3sH65KrTP+JURtQ3n-Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:43:38AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> It would be more useful to accept patches that make syzkaller create
> better reproducers from these people. Manual work is not scalable. We
> would need 10 reproducers per day for a dozen of OSes (incl some
> private kernels/branches). Anybody is free to run syzkaller manually
> and do full manual (perfect) reporting. But for us it become clear
> very early that it won't work. Then see above, while that human is
> sleeping/on weekend/vacation, syzbot will already bisect own
> reproducer. Adding manual reproducer later won't help in any way.
> syzkaller already does lots of smart work for reproducers. Let's not
> give up on the last mile and switch back to all manual work.
I suspect a scalable solution that would significantly improve things
is one where Syzbot tries N times for a "good" result to make sure
it's not a flaky pass. N could either be hard-coded to some value
like 8 or 10, or Syzbot could experimentally try to figure out how
reliable the reproducer happens to be, and figure out what an ideal
"N" value should be for a particular reproducer.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-13 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-19 11:32 INFO: rcu detected stall in sys_sendfile64 (2) syzbot
2019-01-19 11:41 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-01-19 13:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-03-12 3:59 ` syzbot
2019-03-12 4:08 ` Al Viro
2019-03-12 8:00 ` Jani Nikula
2019-03-12 14:29 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-03-12 17:15 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-03-12 21:11 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-03-13 6:43 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-03-13 16:37 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2019-03-13 16:56 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-03-13 23:40 ` Eric Biggers
2019-03-14 10:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-03-20 12:49 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-03-20 13:45 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-03-12 17:10 ` Dmitry Vyukov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190313163701.GE672@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=syzbot+1505c80c74256c6118a5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox