On 2019/03/20 19:42, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> I mean, yes, I agree, kernel bug bisection won't be perfect. But do >> you see anything actionable here? Allow users to manually tell bisection range when automatic bisection found a wrong commit. Also, allow users to specify reproducer program when automatic bisection found a wrong commit. Yes, this is anti automation. But since automation can't become perfect, I'm suggesting manual adjustment. Even if we involve manual adjustment, the syzbot's plenty CPU resources for building/testing kernels is highly appreciated (compared to doing manual bisection by building/testing kernels on personal PC environments). > > I see the larger long term bisection quality improvement (for syzbot > and for everybody else) in doing some actual testing for each kernel > commit before it's being merged into any kernel tree, so that we have > less of these a single program triggers 3 different bugs, stray > unrelated bugs, broken release boots, etc. I don't see how reliable > bisection is possible without that. > syzbot currently cannot test kernels with custom patches (unless "#syz test:" requests). Are you saying that syzbot will become be able to test kernels with custom patches?
