linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [io-uring?] general protection fault in io_sqe_buffer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9e8ccb61-e77a-4354-a848-81242625658c@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 10:14:44 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>
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 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.

-- 
Jens Axboe