Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 08:26:32 +0900 Tetsuo Handa > wrote: > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > It seems that syzbot (experimentally ?) restarted testing linux-next. > > > > May I ask you to carry temporarily debug printk() patch at > >

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 08:26:32 +0900 Tetsuo Handa > wrote: > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > It seems that syzbot (experimentally ?) restarted testing linux-next. > > > > May I ask you to carry temporarily debug printk() patch at > >

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 08:26:32 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > It seems that syzbot (experimentally ?) restarted testing linux-next. > > May I ask you to carry temporarily debug printk() patch at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/E8M8WTqt034/OpadOICfCAAJ > for "INFO:

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 08:26:32 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > It seems that syzbot (experimentally ?) restarted testing linux-next. > > May I ask you to carry temporarily debug printk() patch at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/E8M8WTqt034/OpadOICfCAAJ > for "INFO:

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hello Andrew, It seems that syzbot (experimentally ?) restarted testing linux-next. May I ask you to carry temporarily debug printk() patch at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/E8M8WTqt034/OpadOICfCAAJ for "INFO: task hung in __sb_start_write" case? The bug should be reproduced

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hello Andrew, It seems that syzbot (experimentally ?) restarted testing linux-next. May I ask you to carry temporarily debug printk() patch at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/E8M8WTqt034/OpadOICfCAAJ for "INFO: task hung in __sb_start_write" case? The bug should be reproduced

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/06/27 5:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I think that syzbot can stop deciding email recipients and leave it to those > who > diagnose bugs, for the ratio of sending to wrong subsystem maintainers is not > low. > For example, syzbot assumed that "INFO: task hung in __get_super" is a fs > layer

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/06/27 5:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I think that syzbot can stop deciding email recipients and leave it to those > who > diagnose bugs, for the ratio of sending to wrong subsystem maintainers is not > low. > For example, syzbot assumed that "INFO: task hung in __get_super" is a fs > layer

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/06/26 23:54, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:38 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o 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

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/06/26 23:54, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:38 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o 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

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:38 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o 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

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:38 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o 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

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o 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" >>

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o 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" >>

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

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

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

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

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/06/10 7:17, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa > wrote: >> On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> >>> FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot. >> >> I hope that we can test linux-next on syzbot, as a tree for testing debug >>

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/06/10 7:17, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa > wrote: >> On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> >>> FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot. >> >> I hope that we can test linux-next on syzbot, as a tree for testing debug >>

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

> But forward bisection (when bug is fixed) unfortunately won't work > because these commits are not connected to HEAD. And forward bisection > is very important, otherwise who will bring order to all these > hundreds of open bugs? > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/ Bisection isn't so important

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

> But forward bisection (when bug is fixed) unfortunately won't work > because these commits are not connected to HEAD. And forward bisection > is very important, otherwise who will bring order to all these > hundreds of open bugs? > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/ Bisection isn't so important

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Dmitry Vyukov writes: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:22 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:11:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> >>> The set of trees where a crash happened is visible on dashboard, so >>> one can see if it's only linux-next or whole set of trees.

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Dmitry Vyukov writes: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:22 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:11:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> >>> The set of trees where a crash happened is visible on dashboard, so >>> one can see if it's only linux-next or whole set of trees.

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hi Dmitry, On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:16 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Re backwards bisection (when bug is introduced), we can actually test > linux-next-history instead of linux-next, right? I don't see why using linux-next-history would be any better, it just contains all the linux-next

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hi Dmitry, On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:54:16 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Re backwards bisection (when bug is introduced), we can actually test > linux-next-history instead of linux-next, right? I don't see why using linux-next-history would be any better, it just contains all the linux-next

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:22 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:11:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> The set of trees where a crash happened is visible on dashboard, so >> one can see if it's only linux-next or whole set of trees. Potentially >> syzbot can act

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:22 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:11:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> The set of trees where a crash happened is visible on dashboard, so >> one can see if it's only linux-next or whole set of trees. Potentially >> syzbot can act

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:11:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > The set of trees where a crash happened is visible on dashboard, so > one can see if it's only linux-next or whole set of trees. Potentially > syzbot can act differently depending on this predicate, but I don't > see what should

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:11:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > The set of trees where a crash happened is visible on dashboard, so > one can see if it's only linux-next or whole set of trees. Potentially > syzbot can act differently depending on this predicate, but I don't > see what should

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I think it would be lovely to get linux-next back eventually, but it >> sounds like it's just too noisy right now, and yes, we should have a >> baseline for the standard

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I think it would be lovely to get linux-next back eventually, but it >> sounds like it's just too noisy right now, and yes, we should have a >> baseline for the standard

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I think it would be lovely to get linux-next back eventually, but it > sounds like it's just too noisy right now, and yes, we should have a > baseline for the standard tree first. > > But once there's a "this is known for the

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I think it would be lovely to get linux-next back eventually, but it > sounds like it's just too noisy right now, and yes, we should have a > baseline for the standard tree first. > > But once there's a "this is known for the

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot. > > I hope that we can test linux-next on syzbot, as a tree for testing debug > printk() patches. I think it would be lovely to get

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot. > > I hope that we can test linux-next on syzbot, as a tree for testing debug > printk() patches. I think it would be lovely to get

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: >>> The problem is testing linux-next and then using get-maintainer.pl to >>> report the problem. >>> >>> If you are resource limited I would start by testing Linus's tree to >>> find the

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On 2018/01/22 22:32, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: >>> The problem is testing linux-next and then using get-maintainer.pl to >>> report the problem. >>> >>> If you are resource limited I would start by testing Linus's tree to >>> find the

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov >>> wrote: Hello,

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Dmitry Vyukov writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> On

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Dmitry Vyukov writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov >> >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hi Dmitry, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: Hello, Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hi Dmitry, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: Hello, Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on syzbot. While some people suggested

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dmitry Vyukov writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> >

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dmitry Vyukov writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Dmitry Vyukov writes: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on >>> syzbot.

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Dmitry Vyukov writes: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on >>> syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many >>>

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Several people proposed that linux-next should

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on >>> syzbot. While some people suggested

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on >> syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on >> syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many >> trees as possible. I've

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on > syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many > trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a > staging

Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on > syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many > trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a > staging area before upstream

what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hello, Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a staging area before upstream tree, with the intention that patches are _tested_ there, is they

what trees/branches to test on syzbot

Hello, Several people proposed that linux-next should not be tested on syzbot. While some people suggested that it needs to test as many trees as possible. I've initially included linux-next as it is a staging area before upstream tree, with the intention that patches are _tested_ there, is they