Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Ozgur wrote: > 28.12.2017, 15:30, "Dmitry Vyukov" : >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ozgur wrote: >> > and I think syzbot use to .txt file attached. > .txt is not good. Why are not

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Ozgur wrote: > 28.12.2017, 15:30, "Dmitry Vyukov" : >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ozgur wrote: >> > 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? >>>

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

28.12.2017, 15:30, "Dmitry Vyukov" : > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ozgur wrote: >   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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

28.12.2017, 15:30, "Dmitry Vyukov" : > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ozgur wrote: >   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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ozgur wrote: >>> 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 >

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ozgur wrote: >>> 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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > The thing is syzbot sucks. It tells us things are wrong but not how to > reproduce the problem. Apparently syzbot will test fixes, but that > doesn't help when more information is needed to track down the

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > The thing is syzbot sucks. It tells us things are wrong but not how to > reproduce the problem. Apparently syzbot will test fixes, but that > doesn't help when more information is needed to track down the problem. > > The long of the

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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:

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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,

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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.

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> You might have seen bug reports coming from syzbot on LKML recently. >> syzbot is an automated system that continuously fuzzes

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> You might have seen bug reports coming from syzbot on LKML recently. >> syzbot is an automated system that continuously fuzzes main Linux >> kernel branches

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2017, 14:22:40 CET schrieb Andrey Ryabinin: > > Hi Andrey, > >> 2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : >> > Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? >> >> a) Assume that

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2017, 14:22:40 CET schrieb Andrey Ryabinin: > > Hi Andrey, > >> 2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : >> > Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? >> >> a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > 2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : > >> Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? >> > > a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug report are fixes. > > b) Almost the same as your

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > 2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : > >> Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? >> > > a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug report are fixes. > > b) Almost the same as your "syzbot-fix: HASH" proposal, but slightly >

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Andrey Ryabinin > wrote: >> >> instead of >> From: syzbot >> >> make it >> From: syzbot-{hash}

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Andrey Ryabinin > wrote: >> >> instead of >> From: syzbot >> >> make it >> From: syzbot-{hash} > > That is probably good, but people drop the name all the time. > > But with a very

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

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

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > instead of > From: syzbot > > make it > From: syzbot-{hash} That is probably good, but people drop the name all the time. But with a

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > > instead of > From: syzbot > > make it > From: syzbot-{hash} That is probably good, but people drop the name all the time. But with a very simple tweak, I think this would be close to perfect: put the hash in the

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > You might have seen bug reports coming from syzbot on LKML recently. > syzbot is an automated system that continuously fuzzes main Linux > kernel branches using syzkaller fuzzer and reports all found bugs: >

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:52:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > You might have seen bug reports coming from syzbot on LKML recently. > syzbot is an automated system that continuously fuzzes main Linux > kernel branches using syzkaller fuzzer and reports all found bugs: >

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

Am Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2017, 14:22:40 CET schrieb Andrey Ryabinin: Hi Andrey, > 2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : > > Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? > > a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug report are fixes. > > b) Almost the same as your

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

Am Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2017, 14:22:40 CET schrieb Andrey Ryabinin: Hi Andrey, > 2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : > > Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? > > a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug report are fixes. > > b) Almost the same as your "syzbot-fix: HASH"

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : > Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? > a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug report are fixes. b) Almost the same as your "syzbot-fix: HASH" proposal, but slightly closer to normal kernel development workflow.

Re: [RFC] syzbot process

2017-12-21 15:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Vyukov : > Any other proposals, thoughts, ideas? > a) Assume that patches send in replies to the bug report are fixes. b) Almost the same as your "syzbot-fix: HASH" proposal, but slightly closer to normal kernel development workflow. Add hash/bug id into

[RFC] syzbot process

Hello, You might have seen bug reports coming from syzbot on LKML recently. syzbot is an automated system that continuously fuzzes main Linux kernel branches using syzkaller fuzzer and reports all found bugs: https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md So far it has reported

[RFC] syzbot process

Hello, You might have seen bug reports coming from syzbot on LKML recently. syzbot is an automated system that continuously fuzzes main Linux kernel branches using syzkaller fuzzer and reports all found bugs: https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md So far it has reported