Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACT4Y+ZSmwr4y2VrUxZSvFCL0Ws4cp6T5FwyVRg_CqhCf354HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1912111111510.1549-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1912111111510.1549-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:08:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+xVxFGiJGzEv09GtwfU1wBhCsoEukKXUxW0nq-2h9Aasw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in usbvision_v4l2_open
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+c7b0ec009a216143df30@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 5:22 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> 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?