Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in sys_sendfile64 (2)

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:37 PM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:43:38AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > It would be more useful to accept patches that make syzkaller create
> > better reproducers from these people. Manual work is not scalable. We
> > would need 10 reproducers per day for a dozen of OSes (incl some
> > private kernels/branches). Anybody is free to run syzkaller manually
> > and do full manual (perfect) reporting. But for us it become clear
> > very early that it won't work. Then see above, while that human is
> > sleeping/on weekend/vacation, syzbot will already bisect own
> > reproducer. Adding manual reproducer later won't help in any way.
> > syzkaller already does lots of smart work for reproducers. Let's not
> > give up on the last mile and switch back to all manual work.
>
> I suspect a scalable solution that would significantly improve things
> is one where Syzbot tries N times for a "good" result to make sure
> it's not a flaky pass.  N could either be hard-coded to some value
> like 8 or 10, or Syzbot could experimentally try to figure out how
> reliable the reproducer happens to be, and figure out what an ideal
> "N" value should be for a particular reproducer.

It currently tries 8 times, see e.g.:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=Log&x=13354d9d200000