[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <503641514463979@web33o.yandex.ru>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 15:26:19 +0300
From: Ozgur <ozgur@...sey.org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
andreyknvl <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] syzbot process
28.12.2017, 14:45, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@...gle.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Ozgur <ozgur@...sey.org> wrote:
>> 28.12.2017, 13:41, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@...gle.com>:
>>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> 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. happened once but most likely was
>>>>> caused by a previous silent memory corruption. And support for marking
>>>>> bugs as duplicates of other bugs, i.e. the same root cause and will be
>>>>> fixed when the target bug is fixed. These simple rules are outlined in
>>>>> the footer of each report and also explained in more detail at the
>>>>> referenced link:
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>> This bug is generated by a dumb bot. It may contain errors.
>>>>> See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for details.
>>>>> Direct all questions to syzkaller@...glegroups.com.
>>>>> Please credit me with: Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
>>>>> syzbot will keep track of this bug report.
>>>>> Once a fix for this bug is merged into any tree, reply to this email with:
>>>>> #syz fix: exact-commit-title
>>>>> If you want to test a patch for this bug, please reply with:
>>>>> #syz test: git://repo/address.git branch
>>>>> and provide the patch inline or as an attachment.
>>>>> To mark this as a duplicate of another syzbot report, please reply with:
>>>>> #syz dup: exact-subject-of-another-report
>>>>> If it's a one-off invalid bug report, please reply with:
>>>>> #syz invalid
>>>>> Note: if the crash happens again, it will cause creation of a new bug report.
>>>>> Note: all commands must start from beginning of the line in the email body.
>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Status tracking allows syzbot to (1) keep track of still unfixed bugs
>>>>> (more than half actually gets lost in LKML archives if nobody keeps
>>>>> track of them), (2) be able to ever report similarly looking crashes
>>>>> as new bugs in future, (3) be able to test fixes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that these rules are mostly not followed.
>>>>
>>>> As others mentioned, allowing a bug ID to be in the fix's commit message,
>>>> perhaps in the Reported-by line which syzbot already suggests to include, would
>>>> make things a bit easier.
>>>>
>>>> But I think the larger problem is that people in the community don't have any
>>>> visibility into the statuses of the bugs, so they don't have any motivation to
>>>> manage the statuses.
>>>>
>>>> Are you planning to make a dashboard app publicly available for upstream kernel
>>>> bugs being tracked by syzbot? I think it would be very useful for the
>>>> community, especially for finding more details about a bug, e.g. when was it
>>>> last seen, how often was it seen, has it been seen in multiple trees. Also for
>>>> finding duplicates which may not have been sent to the correct mailing list.
>>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> Good question. I would very much like to open the UI, and I hope to do
>>> it in near future, but we need to do some additional work to make it
>>> possible. The good news is that information is already accumulating
>>> and we can do pings, etc.
>>
>> Hello Dmitry,
>>
>> I think not useful to be a GUI, for example it can be console based ui we can conenct and get information and fixed patches.
>
> Hi Ozgur,
Hello,
> We will do web UI first as it's something that's already partially
> there and syzbot itself is not a console process, it's a cloud
> service. It's also handy because there are lots of contextual
> information and in a web UI one can just just click links to navigate
> or download a blob. Later we could do an API for console clients, etc
> if there is an interest in developing these types of UIs. But
> generally UI is not the main business of syzbot, it's only a side
> thing that helps it achieve the main goal, so it's doesn't have a team
> of people assigned to it. But you are welcome to contribute, it's all
> open-source:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/tree/master/dashboard/app
I understand.
>> So syzbot is perfectly, I founded a patc last time :)
>>
>> https://09738734946362323617.googlegroups.com/attach/3c6ef7059f77c/patch.txt?part=0.2&view=1&vt=ANaJVrFm49WFVkkKiomlnsrdfnv4P-0znjiC4agFB72ibq9_6iqg1rmZtw9-DxS5VvoOoKx8Ikl88sYEQQ45X0vjrwFkKDRaZELV-oU9DVmmrRAMSfStn24
>>
>> And, I have a my suggestions:
>>
>> Please keep to short url addresses.
>
> Well, that's an URL generated by google groups, we don't have control
> over it. You also received the patch as an attachment in the syzbot
> email.
I know, understand. sure.
>> 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 extension is ".txt"
Not comfortable use it for mutt / vim and diff.
I think needs to be an new extension, would be like this ".log" or ".syz" :)
> Thanks
>
>>>> syzbot also should be sending out reminders for bugs that are still open if the
>>>> crash is still occurring, and even moreso if there is a reproducer.
>>>
>>> Agree. The reasons why this hasn't happen yet are:
>>> 1. syzbot is being built up as it's running, I am overwhelmed with
>>> hundreds of bugs and also doing lots of work which may be not directly
>>> visible but important (e.g. improving quality of generated
>>> reproducers, increasing percent of cases when reproducers are created,
>>> improving bug title extraction logic, implementing patch testing by
>>> request, now this new Reported-by-based process, etc).
>>> 2. Just sending an email for each open bug every week is simple, but I
>>> afraid it won't be warmly welcomed. The open questions are: how
>>> frequently syzbot should ping? should repro/no repro affect this? what
>>> to do if it stopped happening? stopped happenning for how long? and
>>> what if it happened just few times, so we can't really conclude if it
>>> still happens or not (but we've seen very bad races manifesting this
>>> way)? how should it interact with the following point?
>>>
>>>> However, if the crash isn't still occurring, then I expect it will become
>>>> necessary to automatically invalidate the bug after some time, lest the list of
>>>> bugs grow without bound due to bugs that have already been fixed that no one has
>>>> time to debug to figure out exactly when/what the fix was, especially if there
>>>> is no reproducer. Or perhaps the bug was only in linux-next and only existed
>>>> due to a buggy patch which was dropped or modified before it reached mainline,
>>>> so there is no "fix" commit.
>>>
>>> Good point. I think we will need to do this in some form in future.
>>> Again open questions:
>>> - what is the precise formula behind "isn't still occurring"?
>>> - should we only close "no repro" bugs?
>>> - should we re-test bugs with repro? (re-testing is not 100% precise,
>>> so we will lose some real subtle bugs this way)
>>>
>>> Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists