On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:54:53PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> I hope we can accept NOW either "reviving linux-next.git" or "allowing debug >> printk() >> patches for linux.git". For example, "INFO: task hung in __sb_start_write" >> got 900 >> crashes in 81 days but still unable to find a reproducer. Dmitry tried to >> reproduce >> locally with debug printk() patches but not yet successful. I think that >> testing with >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f91e1c82-9693-cca3-4ab7-ecd9d9881...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp >> on linux.git or linux-next.git is the only realistic way for debugging this >> bug. >> More we postpone revival of the linux-next, more syzbot reports we will >> get... > > Here's a proposal for adding linux-next back: > > *) Subsystems or maintainers need to have a way to opt out of getting > spammed with Syzkaller reports that have no reproducer. More often > than not, they are not actionable, and just annoy the maintainers, > with the net result that they tune out all Syzkaller reports as > noise.
False. You can count yourself. 2/3 are actionable and fixed. This also makes the following point ungrounded. > *) Email reports for failures on linux-next that correspond to known > failures on mainline should be suppressed. Another way of doing > this would be to only report a problem found by a specific > reproducer to the mailing list unless the recipient has agreed to > be spammed by Syskaller noise. > > And please please please, Syzkaller needs to figure out how to do > bisection runs once you have a reproducer. > > - Ted
