On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 02:49, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/3/21 5:47 PM, syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > > > syzbot has tested the proposed patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue: > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+ba74b85fa15fd7a96437@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Tested on: > > > > commit: 31efe48e io_uring: fix possible poll event lost in mul.. > > git tree: git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block for-5.15/io_uring > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=914bb805fa8e8da9 > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ba74b85fa15fd7a96437 > > compiler: Debian clang version 11.0.1-2, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.1 > > > > Note: testing is done by a robot and is best-effort only. > > Dmitry, I wonder if there's a way to have syzbot know about what it's > testing and be able to run the pending patches for that tree? I think > we're up to 4 reports now that are all just fallout from the same bug, > and where a patch has been queued up for a few days. Since they all look > different, I can't fault syzbot for thinking they are different, even if > they have the same root cause. > > Any way we can make this situation better? I can't keep replying that we > should test the current branch, and it'd be a shame to have a ton of > dupes. Hi Jens, This somehow fell through the cracks, but better late than never. We could set up a syzbot instance for the io-uring tree. It won't solve the problem directly, but if the branch contains both new development ("for-next") and fixes, it will have good chances of discovering issues before they reach mainline and spread to other trees. Do you think it's a good idea? Is there a branch that contains new development and fixes?
