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+Yy4YZG54xXfR1QNM0i8aS66BZyCnaD2YuooYo2sGuSLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:32:04 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        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 6:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> writes:
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> The problem is testing linux-next and then using get-maintainer.pl to
>> report the problem.
>>
>> If you are resource limited I would start by testing Linus's tree to
>> find the existing bugs, and to get a baseline.  Using get-maintainer.pl
>> is fine for sending emails to developers there.
>
> I second this, almost all of the issues you are hitting are usually in
> Linus's tree.  Let's make that "clean" first, before messing around and
> adding 100+ other random developer's trees into the mix :)

FTR I've just dropped linux-next and mmots from syzbot.