Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in gadget_setup

[Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:59 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:11:11PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:57 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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@rowland.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.
> >
> > Yes, this is possible:
> > http://bit.do/syzbot#syzkaller-reproducers
>
> That's not really what I had in mind.  I don't want to spend the time
> and effort installing syskaller on my own system; I want to tell syzbot
> to run a particular syzkaller program (the one that originally led to
> this bug report) on a patched kernel.
>
> The syzbot instructions say that it can test bugs with reproducers.  The
> problem here is that there doesn't seem to be any way to tell it to use
> a particular syzkaller program as a reproducer.

Hi Alan,

This makes sense and I've found an existing feature request:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/1611
I've added a reference to this thread there.