Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:09:30 -0500
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: dangers of bots on the mailing lists was Re: divide error in
 ___bpf_prog_run
Message-ID: <20180118010930.GE6948@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
References: <001a11405130ff1e9705629eb53c@google.com>
 <20180117093225.GB20303@amd>
 <ea809ab2-51f8-9094-efe2-11acf53458c0@iogearbox.net>
 <CACT4Y+YOzrzdGFswy_zp=XOUSKKNebdOJcMHC=SYASRGj3b7FA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180117204735.GC6948@thunk.org>
 <20180118002111.b7ejjd2adunmkooj@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180118002111.b7ejjd2adunmkooj@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:21:13PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 
> If syzkaller can only test one tree than linux-next should be the one.

Well, there's been some controversy about that.  The problem is that
it's often not clear if this is long-standing bug, or a bug which is
in a particular subsystem tree --- and if so, *which* subsystem tree,
etc.  So it gets blasted to linux-kernel, and to get_maintainer.pl,
which is often not accurate --- since the location of the crash
doesn't necessarily point out where the problem originated, and hence
who should look at the syzbot report.  And so this has caused
some.... irritation.

> There is some value of testing stable trees, but any developer
> will first ask for a reproducer in the latest, so usefulness of
> reporting such bugs will be limited.

What I suggested was to test Linus's tree, and then when a problem is
found, and syzkaller has a reliable repro, to *then* try to see if it
*also* shows up in the LTS kernels.

					- Ted