Re: slowly decommission bugzilla?

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/[email protected]/
> 
> 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?

> What I'd like to propose: set up something like [email protected] 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.

>   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 ..."

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).

Regards,

James