Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752801AbeADPYk (ORCPT + 1 other); Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:24:40 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:60792 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750848AbeADPYj (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:24:39 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Pavel Machek , Mike Galbraith , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , syzkaller References: <20180104092552.GA991@amd> <1515058705.7875.25.camel@gmx.de> <20180104095628.GA4407@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:23:58 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Dmitry Vyukov's message of "Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:09:26 +0100") Message-ID: <87inchsl4h.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1eX7Nl-0008Ho-ER;;;mid=<87inchsl4h.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.3.133.177;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+AbZPpDkCx7oTTb/t3hBVwfuvNOi2RPYw= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.133.177 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: LKML admins (syzbot emails are not delivered) X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Dmitry Vyukov writes: > Hi Pavel, > > I've answered this question here in full detail. In short, this is > useful and actionable. > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller/2nVn_XkVhEE/GjjfISejCgAJ *Snort* If the information to solve an issue is not in the Oops syzbot is useless. The Oops isn't even mailed in plain text so I have to save the stupid thing in a file to see the full text of the problem. Further there is no place in the syzbot process to test fixes. Then there is the issue of testing linux-next and reporting errors on who knows what code configuration against code that hasn't changed in linux-next. Which presumably any sane person would assume the errors are introduced by some other piece of new code. But syzbot goes and spams the people who wrote the function where the code is failing. Bots can work. We have all of the automatic testing infrastructure against everyone's branches on kernel.org to prove it. syzbot finds weird errors, so that makes the problem space more difficult to deal with. Still I compleltely don't see the people behind syzbot presumably you Dmitry taking responsibility for syzbot failings. Instead I see excuses like you don't completely control some part of the code that syzbot is built on so can't fix practical real world issues. Like Content-type. Bots can be the most horrible thing for a code base. If there is not someone or something going through an filtering out the false positives. If there is not a process to ensure that issues are brought to the proper peoples attention so things get fixed. Bots can be completely demoralizing or possibily desensitizing because you keep seeing issues, and nothing you do ever makes the issues go away. Given that no one seems to take any responsibility for syzbots failures of any kind. Not content-type in the emails. Not the body of the message (which has a massive disclaimer). I don't find syzbot at all useful. Tools are for people, in this case kernel programmers. syzbot has serious usability issues. That makes syzbot a bad tool. Eric