linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in get_pi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:36:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     syzbot 
        <bot+2af19c9e1ffe4d4ee1d16c56ae7580feaee75765@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        dvhart@...radead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: WARNING in get_pi_state

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 01:23:13PM +0300, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

> But having said that, the tun code is not supposed to make the
> reproducer non-working either. E.g. on our systems it just setups tun
> successfully and then proceeds to the actual code that triggers the
> problem. What's the failure mode with tun code on your system? If we
> make it more portable, then such repros will work on your system as
> well.

It completely fails to create a tun (probably don't have support for
that built-in) and then just sits there doing nothing. I didn't spend
too much time analyzing and just ripped it out.