linux-kernel - Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)

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]

Message-ID: <CABXOdTcS6u=Pcb0y1jc9Muo7F9zu8Mvs=c8rcW+9z4g7QJd+Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:52:01 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered)

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes the branches on linux-next are experimental crap.  If someone
>>> adds an experimental memory allocator to linux-next before discovering
>>> it causes all kinds of problems I don't want bug reports about my code
>>> not being able to allocate memory because the memory allocator was bad.
>>>
>>> If you don't have the resources to test the individual branches of
>>> linux-next please just test Linus's tree.   That will be much more
>>> meaningful and productive.
>>
>> I have to agree with Eric here, the reason why Fengguang Wu's 0-day
>> testing robot is much better received by developers is that he does
>> not test linux-net,
>

Interesting. Assuming that refers to linux-next, not linux-net, that
may explain why linux-next tends to deteriorate. I wonder if I should
drop it from my testing as well. I'll be happy to follow whatever the
result of this exchange is and do the same.

Guenter

> I will remove linux-next if there is a general agreement that it's not
> useful. Though, I've heard different opinions from kernel developers
> as well. I will write a separate email asking what branches should be
> tested.