Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Vyukov <> | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:56:57 +0100 | Subject | Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in sys_sendfile64 (2) |
| |
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:37 PM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:43:38AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > It would be more useful to accept patches that make syzkaller create > > better reproducers from these people. Manual work is not scalable. We > > would need 10 reproducers per day for a dozen of OSes (incl some > > private kernels/branches). Anybody is free to run syzkaller manually > > and do full manual (perfect) reporting. But for us it become clear > > very early that it won't work. Then see above, while that human is > > sleeping/on weekend/vacation, syzbot will already bisect own > > reproducer. Adding manual reproducer later won't help in any way. > > syzkaller already does lots of smart work for reproducers. Let's not > > give up on the last mile and switch back to all manual work. > > I suspect a scalable solution that would significantly improve things > is one where Syzbot tries N times for a "good" result to make sure > it's not a flaky pass. N could either be hard-coded to some value > like 8 or 10, or Syzbot could experimentally try to figure out how > reliable the reproducer happens to be, and figure out what an ideal > "N" value should be for a particular reproducer.
It currently tries 8 times, see e.g.: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Log&x=13354d9d200000
| |