On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:34:12PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Greg KH wrote: > > >> Did this ever go anywhere? I don't see it in Linus's tree yet... > > > > > > I learned yesterday that syzboz is understuffed and cannot test patches, > > > so > > > I need to find a minute to run the reproducer myself and verify that the > > > patch is correct. > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Why do you say so? Have you tried to ask it to test? > > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#communication-with-syzbot > > What happened? > > Eric explained that to me yesterday and I did not try yet. >
Your patch definitely fixes the bug (I tested the C reproducers, you just need to build a kernel with CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y and CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS=y, then run them). The real question is whether the check being introduced is too strict -- are there users passing in other values for ->sigev_notify that would be broken? That I can't really answer. Eric
