On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 07:54:40AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 08:32:41AM +0800, Philip Li wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 11:07:40AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 03:17:55PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > > > Hi Dave,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 08:35:43AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:45:12PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Greeting,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-11):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commit: a1df10d42ba99c946f6a574d4d31951bc0a57e33 ("xfs: fix exception caused by unexpected illegal bestcount in leaf dir")
> > > > > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/UPDATE-20220929-162751/Guo-Xuenan/xfs-fix-uaf-when-leaf-dir-bestcount-not-match-with-dir-data-blocks/20220831-195920
> > > > > >
> [....]
>
> > > commit a1df10d42ba99c946f6a574d4d31951bc0a57e33 *does not exist in
> > > the upstream xfs-dev tree*. The URL provided pointing to the commit
> > > above resolves to a "404 page not found" error, so I have not idea
> > > what code was even being tested here.
> > >
> > > AFAICT, the patch being tested is this one (based on the github url
> > > matching the patch title:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20220831121639.3060527-1-guoxuenan@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Which I NACKed almost a whole month ago! The latest revision of the
> > > patch was posted 2 days ago here:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20221008033624.1237390-1-guoxuenan@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Intel kernel robot maintainers: I've just wasted the best part of 2
> > > hours trying to reproduce and track down a corruption bug that this
> > > report lead me to beleive was in the upstream XFS tree.
> >
> > hi Dave, we are very sorry to waste your time on this report. It's our fault to not
> > make it clear that this is testing a review patch in mailing list. And we also
> > miss the NACKed information in your review, and send out this meaningless report.
>
> The biggest issue was how it was presented.
>
> Normally I see reports from the kernel robot for specific
> uncommitted patches like this as a threaded reply to the specific
We did a review for this case, this was our fault that the generated report
didn't reply with the right in-reply-to message id, thus it was not connected
to original patch. We need be careful to double check the report when sending out.
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-31 12:16 [PATCH v2] xfs: fix uaf when leaf dir bestcount not match with dir data blocks Guo Xuenan
2022-09-12 1:31 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2022-09-14 16:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-09-28 10:06 ` [PATCH v3] xfs: fix expection caused by unexpected illegal bestcount in leaf dir Guo Xuenan
2022-09-29 8:51 ` [PATCH v4] xfs: fix exception " Guo Xuenan
2022-09-29 20:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-10-07 11:33 ` Guo Xuenan
2022-10-07 16:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-10-08 3:36 ` [PATCH v5] " Guo Xuenan
> patch that was identified as having a problem. And normally this
> sort of standalone test failure report comes from a failure bisected
> to a commit already in an upstream tree.
>
> So my confusion here is largely because a bug in an uncommitted
> patch was reported in the same manner as an upstream regression
> would be reported - as a standalone bug report...
We also did a discussion internally, this is confusing with the same style
of report subject "$commit id: $issue", which is hard to distinguish. We
should update the subject to mention it is from mailing list, and add lore
link as you suggested below.
>
>
> > > You need to make it very clear that your bug report is for a commit
> > > that *hasn't been merged into an upstream tree*. The CI robot
> > > noticed a bug in an *old* NACKed patch, not a bug in a new upstream
> > > commit. Please make it *VERY CLEAR* where the code the CI robot is
> > > testing has come from.
> >
> > We will correct our process ASAP to
> >
> > 1) make it clear, what is tested from, a review patch or a patch on upstream tree
>
> Yes, commit ID by itself is not sufficient to identify the issue,
> nor is a pointer to the CI tree the robot built. For a patch pulled
> from a list, it should not be reported as a "commit that failed".
> It should be reported as "uncommitted patch that failed", with:
>
> - a lore link to the patch that was identified as having an issue;
> - a pointer to the base tree the patch(es) were applied to (e.g.
> linus-v5.19-rc7, linux-next-2022-25-09, etc)
> - a pointer to the CI integration tree (that doesn't) the patch was
> applied to and tested.
thanks a lot for the detail instructions, we will follow up all these to update
the report information to make it clear for a review patch.
>
> For an upstream commit that failed, reporting "<commit id> failed"
> is a good start, but it really needs to include the tree as the
> robot might be testing dev trees or linux-next rather than Linus's
> tree. i.e. report as "<tree, commit id> failed <test>".
Got it, we will do this, and to align the runtime report like our kbuild
report to add tree information.
>
> > 2) do not send such report, if the patch has already been NACKed
>
> That's not so much a problem. The real problem that needs solving is
> ensuring that the recipients of the bug report are able to quickly
> and obviously identify what was being tested when the issue was hit.
Got it, thanks for the advice, we will make above changes asap.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
