On 5/5/22 8:11 AM, Guo Xuenan wrote:
> Hi, Pavel & Jens
>
> CVE-2022-1508[1] contains an patch[2] of io_uring. As Jones reported,
> it is not enough only apply [2] to stable-5.10.
> Io_uring is very valuable and active module of linux kernel.
> I've tried to apply these two patches[3] [4] to my local 5.10 code, I
> found my understanding of io_uring is not enough to resolve all conflicts.
>
> Since 5.10 is an important stable branch of linux, we would appreciate
> your help in solving this problem.
Yes, this really needs to get buttoned up for 5.10. I seem to recall
there was a reproducer for this that was somewhat saner than the
syzbot one (which doesn't do anything for me). Pavel, do you have one?
--
Jens Axboe
On 5/6/22 03:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/5/22 8:11 AM, Guo Xuenan wrote:
>> Hi, Pavel & Jens
>>
>> CVE-2022-1508[1] contains an patch[2] of io_uring. As Jones reported,
>> it is not enough only apply [2] to stable-5.10.
>> Io_uring is very valuable and active module of linux kernel.
>> I've tried to apply these two patches[3] [4] to my local 5.10 code, I
>> found my understanding of io_uring is not enough to resolve all conflicts.
>>
>> Since 5.10 is an important stable branch of linux, we would appreciate
>> your help in solving this problem.
>
> Yes, this really needs to get buttoned up for 5.10. I seem to recall
> there was a reproducer for this that was somewhat saner than the
> syzbot one (which doesn't do anything for me). Pavel, do you have one?
No, it was the only repro and was triggering the problem
just fine back then
--
Pavel Begunkov
On 5/6/22 9:57 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 5/6/22 03:16, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/5/22 8:11 AM, Guo Xuenan wrote:
>>> Hi, Pavel & Jens
>>>
>>> CVE-2022-1508[1] contains an patch[2] of io_uring. As Jones reported,
>>> it is not enough only apply [2] to stable-5.10.
>>> Io_uring is very valuable and active module of linux kernel.
>>> I've tried to apply these two patches[3] [4] to my local 5.10 code, I
>>> found my understanding of io_uring is not enough to resolve all conflicts.
>>>
>>> Since 5.10 is an important stable branch of linux, we would appreciate
>>> your help in solving this problem.
>>
>> Yes, this really needs to get buttoned up for 5.10. I seem to recall
>> there was a reproducer for this that was somewhat saner than the
>> syzbot one (which doesn't do anything for me). Pavel, do you have one?
>
> No, it was the only repro and was triggering the problem
> just fine back then
I modified it a bit and I can now trigger it.
--
Jens Axboe