linux-kernel - Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in sys

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:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:56:57 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzbot <syzbot+1505c80c74256c6118a5@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in sys_sendfile64 (2)

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:37 PM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> 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