From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: dangers of bots on the mailing lists was Re: divide error in ___bpf_prog_run Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:09:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20180118010930.GE6948@thunk.org> References: <001a11405130ff1e9705629eb53c@google.com> <20180117093225.GB20303@amd> <20180117204735.GC6948@thunk.org> <20180118002111.b7ejjd2adunmkooj@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Daniel Borkmann , Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com To: Alexei Starovoitov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180118002111.b7ejjd2adunmkooj@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:21:13PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > If syzkaller can only test one tree than linux-next should be the one. Well, there's been some controversy about that. The problem is that it's often not clear if this is long-standing bug, or a bug which is in a particular subsystem tree --- and if so, *which* subsystem tree, etc. So it gets blasted to linux-kernel, and to get_maintainer.pl, which is often not accurate --- since the location of the crash doesn't necessarily point out where the problem originated, and hence who should look at the syzbot report. And so this has caused some.... irritation. > There is some value of testing stable trees, but any developer > will first ask for a reproducer in the latest, so usefulness of > reporting such bugs will be limited. What I suggested was to test Linus's tree, and then when a problem is found, and syzkaller has a reliable repro, to *then* try to see if it *also* shows up in the LTS kernels. - Ted