syzkaller/dashboard/app/mail_bug.txt
Dmitry Vyukov 1efec8f5c7 dashboard/app: say "issue" instead of "crash"
We've got several complains re using of word "crash" in all syzbot reports, e.g.:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/8rFLFgQR9fo/HBYUXIRyBAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/3nlcT8Wn7hg/8Th16X3DBAAJ
Another suggested that "crash" is too hard for e.g. a LOCKDEP splat:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller/YzHLAU0dXpI/WOqq1ggBBQAJ

Another terminology complaint was regarding the following fact.
When we test a patch, we only detect if it still triggers _any_ issue
(not necessary the original one). Currently we way "still triggers crash"
(without any article, which is probably wrong from English perspective
anyway). We did not say "the", but people assumed that and complained.
Explicitly say "a".

Also replace all uses of "bug" with "issue" for consistency.
And use "final oops" instead of "final crash", which seems
to be standard terminology at least for Linux:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_oops
2020-07-14 23:21:01 +02:00

54 lines
2.4 KiB
Plaintext

{{if .First -}}
Hello,
{{end -}}
syzbot {{if .First}}found{{else}}has found a reproducer for{{end}} the following issue on:
HEAD commit: {{formatShortHash .KernelCommit}} {{formatCommitTableTitle .KernelCommitTitle}}
git tree: {{.KernelRepoAlias}}
{{if .LogLink}}console output: {{.LogLink}}
{{end}}{{if .KernelConfigLink}}kernel config: {{.KernelConfigLink}}
{{end}}dashboard link: {{.Link}}
{{if .CompilerID}}compiler: {{.CompilerID}}
{{end}}{{if .UserSpaceArch}}userspace arch: {{.UserSpaceArch}}
{{end}}{{if .ReproSyzLink}}syz repro: {{.ReproSyzLink}}
{{end}}{{if .ReproCLink}}C reproducer: {{.ReproCLink}}
{{end}}{{if and .Moderation .Maintainers}}CC: {{.Maintainers}}
{{end}}{{if and (not .NoRepro) (not .ReproCLink) (not .ReproSyzLink)}}
Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
{{end}}
{{if .BisectCause}}{{if .BisectCause.Commit}}The issue was bisected to:
commit {{.BisectCause.Commit.Hash}}
Author: {{.BisectCause.Commit.AuthorName}} <{{.BisectCause.Commit.Author}}>
Date: {{formatKernelTime .BisectCause.Commit.Date}}
{{.BisectCause.Commit.Title}}
{{else if .BisectCause.Commits}}Bisection is inconclusive: the first bad commit could be any of:
{{range $com := .BisectCause.Commits}}
{{formatShortHash $com.Hash}} {{$com.Title}}{{end}}
{{else}}Bisection is inconclusive: the issue happens on the oldest tested release.
{{end}}
bisection log: {{.BisectCause.LogLink}}
{{if .BisectCause.CrashReportLink}}final oops: {{.BisectCause.CrashReportLink}}
{{end}}{{if .BisectCause.CrashLogLink}}console output: {{.BisectCause.CrashLogLink}}
{{end}}
{{end}}IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: {{.CreditEmail}}
{{if .BisectCause}}{{if .BisectCause.Commit}}Fixes: {{formatTagHash .BisectCause.Commit.Hash}} ("{{.BisectCause.Commit.Title}}")
{{end}}{{end}}
{{printf "%s" .Report}}
{{if .First}}
---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.
syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.{{if .BisectCause}}
For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection{{end}}{{if or .ReproCLink .ReproSyzLink}}
syzbot can test patches for this issue, for details see:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#testing-patches
{{- end -}}
{{- end -}}