linux-kernel - Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 9 Jun 2018 21:51:07 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: 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 baseline", I think adding
> linux-next back in and then maybe even have linux-next simply just
> kick out trees that cause problems would be a good idea.
> 
> Right now linux-next only kicks things out based on build issues (or
> extreme merge issues), afaik. But it *would* be good to also have
> things like syzbot do quality control on linux-next.

Syzbot is always getting improved to find new classes of problems.  So
the only way to get a baseline would be to use an older version of
syzbot for linux-next, and to have it suppress sending e-mails about
failures that are duplicates that were already found via the mainline
tree.

Then periodically, once version N has run for M weeks, and has spewed
some large number of new failures to LKML, then you could promote
version N to be run against linux-next, and so hopefully the only
thing it would report against linux-next are regressions, and not
duplicates of new bugs also being found via the latest and greatest
version of syzbot being run against the mainline kernel.

						- Ted