linux-kernel - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:51:36 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: 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 are not tested there, bugs enter upstream
tree. And then it takes much longer to get fix into other trees.

So the question is: what trees/branches should be tested? Preferably
in priority order as syzbot can't test all of them.

Thanks