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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com>
References: <CACT4Y+bvA6hrVT5u-Cy_zJLNTM5SYf9kt+sXYmfq13rPGfiqFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABXOdTf+CoB6EkhG1yPtB4NNtohbex=ebHLX7YW5TyQQGn9byw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+aGMoobn069+Lq1BT2YGqi9qYY9vHFtiXT2DLsJ5ZUh9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <873735n3dy.fsf@xmission.com> <20180116173440.GA15893@kroah.com>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:32:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Yy4YZG54xXfR1QNM0i8aS66BZyCnaD2YuooYo2sGuSLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: what trees/branches to test on syzbot
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:02:17AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.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.