On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 07:57 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 08:33:27AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> > > Thanks for the explanation, Dmitry. I've added the tag to the patch in >> > > my tree. It should show up in linux-next soon. >> > > >> > > I still find it a little misleading to say that syzbot reported a bug >> > > when it actually found a bug inside an earlier version of the patch, but >> > > I'll just learn to get over it. >> > >> > The usual tag for someone that found a bug in an earlier version of a >> > patch would be Reviewed-by:. Is there any reason we can't use that >> > here? The "syzbot+..." email should be enough on its own, I can't see a >> > reason why their scripts would need to require a particular tag. Or >> > maybe we could use Tested-by:, or some other tag made up for this case? >> > >> > I do worry that someone who sees "Reported-by:..." might for example >> > mistakenly assume that it would help to backport that patch if they see >> > a similar-looking oops. >> >> I see. It may also be picked by scripts that detects patches that need >> to be backported to stable because of the "Reported-by: syzbot" tag. >> This is somewhat unfortunate. >> >> There is no problem parsing another tag on syzbot side. Does Tested-by >> look good to you? If it found a bug in the patch and then it was >> fixed, Tested-by looks reasonable. And we also detect >> Reported-and-tested-by already because that's what syzbot suggests >> after it tested a proposed fix for a bug. >> >> I am somewhat concerned how to spread this information across all >> kernel developers. There is effectively no way to do this. We can't >> expect people to read docs, they generally don't. I guess I just >> document this at "See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information" and >> then we can point other people there if/when this concern pops up >> again. > > Tested-by sounds like it might be a reasonable fit. I'll change the > patch in my tree to read that way. Turns out this already works (we did not check exact tag, just search for the right email with a hash). So I added a test for Tested-by tag and extended the docs: https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/9aca6b5240809308d9078a0a0f0707512c5b0220
