[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210413165724.GD1454681@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:57:24 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+eb4674092e6cc8d9e0bd@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in gadget_setup
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:47:47PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:13 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Hopefully this patch will make the race a lot more likely to occur. Is
> > there any way to tell syzkaller to test it, despite the fact that
> > syzkaller doesn't think it has a reproducer for this issue?
>
> If there is no reproducer the only way syzbot can test it is if it's
> in linux-next under CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT:
> http://bit.do/syzbot#no-custom-patches
There _is_ a theoretical reproducer: the test that provoked syzkaller's
original bug report. But syzkaller doesn't realize that it is (or may
be) a reproducer.
It ought to be possible to ask syzkaller to run a particular test that
it has done before, with a patch applied -- and without having to add
anything to linux-next.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists