[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANp29Y4dWOk3Hk2NJbQSnSE-XoQfCv5vM1FM_FWr5Xbv+d3yFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:34:47 +0100
From: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+05c0f12a4d43d656817e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [io-uring?] general protection fault in io_sqe_buffer_register
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 6:14 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 12/4/24 10:11 AM, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > Just in case:
> >
> > Syzbot reported this commit as the result of the cause (bug origin)
> > bisection, not as the commit after which the problem was gone. So
> > (unless it actually is a fixing commit) reporting it back via #syz fix
> > is not correct.
>
> The commit got fixed, and hence there isn't a good way to convey this
> to syzbot as far as I can tell. Just marking the updated one as the
> fixer seems to be the best/closest option.
>
> Other option is to mark it as invalid, but that also doesn't seem right.
>
> I'm fine doing whatever to get issues like this closed, but it's not
> an uncommon thing to have a buggy commit that's not upstream yet be
> fixed up and hence not have the issue anymore.
I see. You are right, thanks for the explanation!
There's indeed no better way to convey this at the moment. I've filed
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/5567 to discuss what can be
done.
--
Aleksandr
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists