linux-kernel - Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in usbvision_v4l2

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:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:08:01 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+c7b0ec009a216143df30@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in usbvision_v4l2_open

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 5:22 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> > > > By the way, do you know why syzbot sent _two_ reply messages?  One with
> > > > message ID <00000000000031a0af05995eca0b@...gle.com> and the other with
> > > > message ID <000000000000441a4205995eca11@...gle.com>?  It seems like
> > > > overkill.
> > >
> > > Hm, I'm not sure. Dmitry?
> >
> > I would assume it received 2 emails (second from syzkaller-bugs@
> > mailing list) and deduplication logic did not work somehow. So it
> > replied to both.
>
> Does that mean when I send in a test request, it's better to omit
> syzkaller-bugs from the CC: list?
>
> Also, whatever did happen to the most recent test request (the one sent
> to syzbot+7fa38a608b1075dfd634 even though it was meant to test the
> bug reported by syzbot+c7b0ec009a216143df30)?  Did it truly fail to
> build?  I can't find anything about it in the dashboard link for either
> bug report, and I haven't gotten a reply from syzbot.

Yes, the patch failed due to msleep() being undefined in that source
file. I'm not sure why syzbot didn't send a response. Could you try
resending the patch as the reply to that other syzbot report?