From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1276C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E7A22527 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="X1KkHrFe" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729791AbfLLQIN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:08:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f66.google.com ([209.85.216.66]:46838 "EHLO mail-pj1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729247AbfLLQIN (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:08:13 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f66.google.com with SMTP id z21so1198922pjq.13 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:08:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t52ABI4o3xuFzx6iI2FiMXzfLHRG2vXtrOTjLyWwP9Y=; b=X1KkHrFe5+KnHXvDuX3JhEdoMJFSddEV0UBbSMsLqYli/s1pZYiVh+80ScOCfhZHOM mbkNEsocPrMFAgosaX2RG2mHTAM7cIn0BK/k5T4QTjffd623q7TN/9iUQI0AQOfZlTCH czPVYHsiIpszSn9niPFVmY50qxpQICUTky78CnTGdd4NwlcSWUb4Ip7p3KFm6tl3oBFG lgF0SkN3G/CYcDH/Py8VaSZPbmbNjsCt7+ssDRY9JU/t1qonM3t0Opzaq5OX7utarXDk KP8hmVFCFsBIYmi/fJlezeLb+o8+ydOiJihIHxUwtua/q0xGkJs0nlnKeOnfwYsDn2TW y+9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t52ABI4o3xuFzx6iI2FiMXzfLHRG2vXtrOTjLyWwP9Y=; b=WD0CfLG3GYwh4w3YPOO1jsfY3XIqBcNENEV97Lpv0rZmFXIYVMRq3nPQSN1YEcsGlq g8SzhVtD0phwtBjX4+3sIVRahcanqagHT/lNWztRMz0CigSanHy76mw/u6FzZcJA3R9s Ikd5v6d+EQiusHsciYUtzRr3HjnUlrrj6PUL5kAtMoe+qHsmeXvaJNeJv3IkBIF1QjvX YgvL16CpOGoA8NtA/j3F+KHqoryIq0fur1di2IjAuQCHH7WB7+vkqHHs8T7WIL7Nvrig lM0v3h0BTcjj3Yy4RN5vS91cYL/DgPwI8s8l01ZQmadzAG5mSu35XA/3nOWpXaZGdQxO 5H6g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwWoXI+9N3IlmT0XHwNp66boUuPQg3eyxOA9VRiyzPk26L/wwK A54DQoA0MHS1SALXlJ3muRwW9u7sF6FP4WnOiT4IOQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwASuMpHZLBfrLXn/KYVzEs9kgGnKLeSVpzijPOaYmow5k5SKoXqWmvUXPl8XHgRTNm16UsMpTaUOySri6b+N4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9682:: with SMTP id n2mr10050409plp.336.1576166892491; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:08:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Andrey Konovalov Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:08:01 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in usbvision_v4l2_open To: Alan Stern Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , syzbot , Hans Verkuil , Souptick Joarder , LKML , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, USB list , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Richard Fontana , syzkaller-bugs , Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 5:22 PM Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > By the way, do you know why syzbot sent _two_ reply messages? One with > > > > message ID <00000000000031a0af05995eca0b@google.com> and the other with > > > > message ID <000000000000441a4205995eca11@google.com>? It seems like > > > > overkill. > > > > > > Hm, I'm not sure. Dmitry? > > > > I would assume it received 2 emails (second from syzkaller-bugs@ > > mailing list) and deduplication logic did not work somehow. So it > > replied to both. > > Does that mean when I send in a test request, it's better to omit > syzkaller-bugs from the CC: list? > > Also, whatever did happen to the most recent test request (the one sent > to syzbot+7fa38a608b1075dfd634 even though it was meant to test the > bug reported by syzbot+c7b0ec009a216143df30)? Did it truly fail to > build? I can't find anything about it in the dashboard link for either > bug report, and I haven't gotten a reply from syzbot. Yes, the patch failed due to msleep() being undefined in that source file. I'm not sure why syzbot didn't send a response. Could you try resending the patch as the reply to that other syzbot report?