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  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:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:43:38 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <>
Cc:     syzbot <>,
        syzkaller-bugs <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in sys_sendfile64 (2)

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:11 PM Tetsuo Handa
<> wrote:
> On 2019/03/13 2:15, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >> Also, this bisection is finding multiple different crash patterns, which
> >> suggests that the crashed tests are not giving correct feedback to syzbot.
> >
> > Treating different crashes as just "crash" is intended. Kernel bugs
> > can manifest in very different ways.
> > Want fun, search for "bpf: sockhash, disallow bpf_tcp_close and update
> > in parallel" in
> > It lead to 50+ different failure modes.
> >
> But syzbot already found a rather simple C reproducer
> ( ) for this bug.
> Was this reproducer used for bisection?

The C reproducer used for bisection is provided as "C reproducer" in
the bisection report.

> I guess that if this reproducer was used,
> syzbot did not hit "WARNING: ODEBUG bug in netdev_freemem" cases.

Maybe. But we won't have more than 1 in future. Currently syzbot
bisects over a backlog of crashes, some of them accumulated multiple
reproducers over weeks/months/years. When it will bisect newly
reported bugs as they are found, there will be only 1 reproducer. E.g.
these two for this bug were found within a month.

> Also, humans can sometimes find more simpler C reproducers from syzbot provided
> reproducers. It would be nice if syzbot can accept and use a user defined C
> reproducer for testing.

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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists