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]

Message-ID: <CACT4Y+aGMoobn069+Lq1BT2YGqi9qYY9vHFtiXT2DLsJ5ZUh9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:58:51 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> 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 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.
>>
>
> I always thought that -next existed specifically to give people a
> chance to test the code in it. Maybe the question is where to report
> the test results ?

FTR, from Guenter on another thread:

> 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.

If we agree on some list of important branches, and what branches
specifically should not be tested with automatic reporting, I think it
will benefit everybody.
+Fengguang, can you please share your list and rationale behind it?