[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1cfb5382-8d1e-4c35-b8b1-fdfc69a831fd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 15:29:56 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
syzbot <syzbot+6456a99dfdc2e78c4feb@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [io-uring?] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
dereference in io_buffer_select
On 5/12/25 15:19, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/12/25 8:19 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 5/12/25 14:56, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> ...>> this line:
>>>>
>>>> tail = smp_load_acquire(&br->tail);
>>>>
>>>> The offset of the tail field is 0xe so bl->buf_ring should be 0. That's
>>>> while it has IOBL_BUF_RING flag set. Same goes for the other report. Also,
>>>> since it's off io_buffer_select(), which looks up the list every time we
>>>> can exclude the req having a dangling pointer.
>>>
>>> It's funky for sure, the other one is regular classic provided buffers.
>>> Interestingly, both reports are for arm32...
>>
>> The other is ring pbuf as well
>
> True yes, both are pbuf. I can't hit any of this on arm64 or x86-64, fwiw.
> Which is why I thought the arm32 connection might be interesting. Not that
> the arch should matter at all here, but...
Yep, there is a suspicion there might be something on the
mm / allocation side, need to find a good way to narrow it down.
At least we can make syz test patches for us.
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists