On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I hope the below doesn't sound like a criticism; I am a *huge* fan of > syzkaller. > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:18:07PM +0200, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via syzkaller wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: >> 3. You say "not actionable reports without reproducers", but you can >> find hundreds of fixed bugs without reproducers at [1] and [2]. Fix >> ratio for bugs without reproducers is 66% which is not significantly >> lower than 76% for bugs with reproducers. A person without expertise >> in a particular subsystem (me) can't know if a bug is actionable by an >> expert in the subsystem (you) without first reporting this bug. > > I think it might be possible to make this a bit easier, without any > manual effort per-bug. > > For comparison, when the LKP kernel test robot reports a bug, it > provides a script to reproduce the issue in a VM, such that the > developer need only provide a kernel. The script launches the VM with > the right options, providing a filesystem if necessary, etc. > > This is a little more actionale, since the developer need not expend any > effort trying to reproduce the correct envinronment, which can be > especially tricky for bugs that don't have a C reproducer. > > Would it be possible for syzbot to do something similar?
Hi Mark, Yes, it is possible. There is even https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/563 for this. Now I've added a note that this script also needs to accept a custom/local kernel (not sure what was the idea of this script without such option). Thanks
