From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54E251E7C12 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772381766; cv=none; b=BtnGv86K1BAdUgHovsuCKSW8Yrg/woEbjVUe5rbJqnzRvNWRn7P/PMN/J3atdPE/S8Mk85MCMvU3eefz9DzcRIkwrMvjwOZLhHUQvbCqo2vf5HK2lHMrzRP3dM6AtjAKG7PQdO4fzwL1d1XhQFld1ifjxv9gZIUrXe4GmKqV+no= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772381766; c=relaxed/simple; bh=raL/ohrcmklH1Ot8X4pH+abDuIFvkWIZFdy5siHm2qg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QDVrVRVJMerwIWHGEkk47/HdseNVOJRO15N32qE+LbsRUUJqVM+HnaO1WufGb0revnZl/pdxdL1Bi9VtruDCoIEMaUXxdhtS/Zkrr/5WWSyKRVCCxG87EpuWatPWHVSmOcyiMyz8syRLUIWtw2KoP376d4nmLSE7tlHmwFcoK8Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Yf8GL6vc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Yf8GL6vc" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5892C116C6; Sun, 1 Mar 2026 16:16:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772381766; bh=raL/ohrcmklH1Ot8X4pH+abDuIFvkWIZFdy5siHm2qg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Yf8GL6vcmC5EWpMV767VHdUJMkeYUICDsCLiWZYe9mf2LQHzD2Ww7+7LL8wGSEN4l Pt6AfSZhcjopp5vfl/F75ZQsXiA/ohZMo5LhaImvcWyWBqZxjPJz6jqdlkzwCiP9HY ws4eQ9Rbdzz8plzS1YsZvnqdG5Tcp+Df8I7fkHlim+QQlg8Z6Ugp4yNxNmZMKqj4qR /pHfhnrgYbNX8eaQ5MVduRDr0YlK/vqOW6BFZmy1RUwRKjouEfNNk06oe4q/h3oHiM 8UHWx2wnlrcgQ6VydNoxkwN11LBBPPnAJ1l2HT5p1ua+X3F6wYwwLE0U3iqho9EC0r W9O7zO7Infudw== Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 11:16:04 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: James Bottomley Cc: Steven Rostedt , Richard Weinberger , Linus Torvalds , Thorsten Leemhuis , Geert Uytterhoeven , Andrew Morton , Konstantin Ryabitsev , users , ksummit Subject: Re: slowly decommission bugzilla? Message-ID: References: <1655051015.2216.1772209338375.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <5dea1bca-75fe-4e3c-950d-d489a438299a@leemhuis.info> <1786920159.1633.1772291851870.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <1661016163.157.1772303364121.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <20260228152617.06b392de@fedora> <583136576.604.1772310537428.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <20260228155611.70911c0f@fedora> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 11:01:07AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: >On Sun, 2026-03-01 at 10:23 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: >[...] >> As an example, this bug report came in today with no replies: >> >>    >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/DGRCO9SL0T5U.JTINSHJQ9KPK@imlonghao.com/ >> >> I fed it to an LLM. It decoded the stack trace (as described above), >> then traced the crash to iptfs_reassem_cont() at xfrm_iptfs.c:905: >> skb_put() on a non-linear skb. It identified the offending commit >> (5f2b6a9095743), the code author (Christian Hopps), the relevant >> maintainers, and a couple more vulnerable call sites in the same >> function. Not perfect, but enough to get the report to the right >> people with useful context already attached. > >Lore says there's been no follow up to that email ... shouldn't someone >check with the reporter that the fix actually works? Hmm? I don't think that there's a fix available yet. >> What I'd like to propose: set up something like bug@kernel.org with a >> bot that watches it. When a report comes in, it: > >If we're going to link an agent to a mailing list, why not simply have >it scan all of them? Something like the way the old ksymoops used to. We could. In my mind a mail to bug@ would just be a marker for the bot to run on. Do we have a better way to identify bug reports? I don't want to send every single incoming mail through the LLM to determine if it's a bug report or not. That would make it slightly expensive :) >>   1. Pulls the oops/stack trace from the email (if exists) >>   2. Figures out the kernel version, obtains or builds debuginfo, and >>      decodes the stack trace >>   3. Reads the relevant source, identifies root cause, offending >> commit, >>      and the right maintainers/lists >>   4. Forwards the report with its analysis to the right list, Cc'ing >>      the right people >> >> One email address, no tooling required from the reporter, bugs get to >> the right list with a decoded stack trace and first-pass analysis. >> The analysis will be wrong sometimes, but even just the decoded trace >> and correct routing is better than what bugzilla gives us today. > >If an agent is going to be doing this, then the agent could reply with >the results and add the emails it deduced should be notified. You can >add caveat phrases like "Hi I'm an automatic reply from a LLM and I >think ..." Yup! In this example, it would reply with the processed report (the one I linked in the previous mail), but also cc the list of folks it identified in the "Contacts" section. >It also looks quite easy for the agent to identify whether this is a >regression or not and flag that more clearly (and possibly follow up as >well, which means we get regression tracking back). Agree -- Thanks, Sasha