From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA947AA for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:22:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f46.google.com (mail-lf0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5190E297 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b199so54450334lfe.0 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160728171506.GA23015@roeck-us.net> References: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> <20160727144114.GA2273@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160728171506.GA23015@roeck-us.net> From: Dmitry Vyukov Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:21:58 +0200 Message-ID: To: Guenter Roeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: syzkaller , kasan-dev , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Nominating Fengguang Wu - 0-day List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:41:14PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:01:25PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > >> >It surprises Fengguang Wu hasn't been nominated yet, >> >so I'd like to nominate him. The mechanical process should probably include in >> >the future a scrape for top Reported-by contributors. >> >> Thanks for your appreciations, Luis! >> >> >Fengguang's 0-day infrastructure is invaluable to day to day kernel >> >development, having him present would be great for any questions that may come >> >up. >> >> I'd be glad to answer questions and more importantly, collect >> feedbacks on where and how to improve the 0-day infrastructure. >> >> There are 2 major parts in 0-day: build tests and runtime tests. >> While build tests will be continuously improved, there may be a lot >> more to be desired for runtime tests, which should be my main focus >> in the coming year. >> > For runtime test improvements: We should discuss if and how to integrate > kasan/syzkaller testing, and/or if it would make sense to set up a separate > test bed for that purpose (to avoid overloading 0day). I am all for it. We are attending plumbers, so we will be able to discuss this in person. >> >Getting a statistical overview / update of impact / any major architectural >> >changes of the 0-day infrastructure would also be very useful. >> >> Sure if there are interests. >> >> >If maintainers >> >are not yet using 0-day it would be great to hear why. If your contributors are >> >not using 0-day (I know some of you exist) I'd like to know why you don't use it, >> >I often run into issues on linux-next which at times I have to fix, if 0-day >> >would have been used a folowup fix would not have been needed. >> >> 0-day tries to monitor as many git trees as possible, so that fresh >> code can be tested before they land maintainer trees and linux-next. >> To achieve better early code coverage, we periodically check if there >> are new git trees showing up in git.kernel.org, in mainline git log >> or mentioned in LKML emails. And add the newly discovered ones >> unsolicited. :) >> >> That said, it's still possible errors hit linux-next. Sometimes it may >> be due to bug in 0-day or temporarily out of service. The solution >> would be to improve 0-day system's stability and add more self-tests >> to the system. Quick feedbacks about build/boot errors missed by 0-day >> would also be highly appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> Fengguang >> _______________________________________________ >> Ksummit-discuss mailing list >> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss