On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:43:32AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > An old syzkaller may not understand part of syscalls in the program > and silently drop them, you need a new one.
That's yucky semantics, better to at least warn on that occasion. > Here is a straightforward conversion of the syzkaller program to C > (with/without namespace sandbox): > > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/b6540bed50b7da1dff3d7373ba570c77/raw/fd5f2f3aaa52b70b2bb9f114cf8a3226d8a30960/gistfile1.txt > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/dbd8ec38bcb50df4bdc95210d4247b09/raw/f9cbb5e17cd4ff4a7a7881c97dea7d6cd6dd8bf1/gistfile1.txt Thanks! > That's also with -procs=10, you can change number of procs in main funciton. > > But I wasn't able to reproduce the crash using these programs (neither > the syzkaller program), that's why I did not provide it all initially. Right, I'll run them while at the same time trying to see what it is they're doing to find clues.