linux-kernel - Re: kernel panic: corrupted stack end in wb

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]

Message-ID: <CACT4Y+b-VNeKwgP9-x2YZJ08v0f=2C2SujVkgEmcQ+B-ZmmCLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:59:19 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+ec1b7575afef85a0e5ca@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        guro@...com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: kernel panic: corrupted stack end in wb_workfn

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> On 2019/03/20 19:42, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >> I mean, yes, I agree, kernel bug bisection won't be perfect. But do
> >> you see anything actionable here?
>
> Allow users to manually tell bisection range when
> automatic bisection found a wrong commit.
>
> Also, allow users to specify reproducer program
> when automatic bisection found a wrong commit.
>
> Yes, this is anti automation. But since automation can't become perfect,
> I'm suggesting manual adjustment. Even if we involve manual adjustment,
> the syzbot's plenty CPU resources for building/testing kernels is highly
> appreciated (compared to doing manual bisection by building/testing kernels
> on personal PC environments).

FTR: provided an extended answer here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/1BSkmb_fawo/DOcDxv_KAgAJ


> > I see the larger long term bisection quality improvement (for syzbot
> > and for everybody else) in doing some actual testing for each kernel
> > commit before it's being merged into any kernel tree, so that we have
> > less of these a single program triggers 3 different bugs, stray
> > unrelated bugs, broken release boots, etc. I don't see how reliable
> > bisection is possible without that.
> >
>
> syzbot currently cannot test kernels with custom patches (unless "#syz test:" requests).
> Are you saying that syzbot will become be able to test kernels with custom patches?

I mean if we start improving kernel quality over time so that we have
less of these a single program triggers 3 different bugs, stray
unrelated bugs, broken release boots, etc, it will improve bisection
quality for everybody (beside being hugely useful in itself).