On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:05:29 +0200 Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > None of these look like they are tracing infrastructure related. > > Like get_maintainer.pl, syzbot relies on the MAINTAINERS file to > attribute bugs to the individual kernel subsystems. If several ones > are suitable, the bug is assigned several labels at once. It's now > actually the case for all open "trace" findings: > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream/s/trace > > (FWIW it's also possible to manually overwrite these labels and remove > specific bugs from the monthly reports). > > I could make syzbot set "trace" only if there's no other good > candidate, but I wonder if that could hide the findings in the trace > infrastructure that manifested themselves in some specific traced > subsystem. > I don't mind being Cc'd to these bugs. What I do mind is that only the tracing maintainers are Cc'd. I still care about these, because they do depend on the tracing code, and it could be the tracing infrastructure's fault. But if an error is in a file that is explicitly called out in the maintainers file, such as, blktrace.c and bpf_trace.c, then PLEASE also Cc the maintainers of those files! I had to manually add those maintainers when I replied to the initial email. That is something I shouldn't need to do. -- Steve
