Re: Extending the 0-day system with syzkaller?

[Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3488 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:03:42AM -0700, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> Ping...
> (I know that the recent news at Intel might be quite distracting for some
> you...)
hi all, this is Philip from 0day team, sorry for late reply. We are glad to add
syzkaller test suite to 0day, and we will do detail plan of it within this quarter
and share with by end of June including what the first step can be and any support
if needed.

Is this time frame ok? because right now, all resources are booked, and
formal action may need start next quarter.

One quick question is i recall an early discussion is that this enabling requires new gcc,
is this still be true?

Thanks

> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Hart, Darren <darren.hart@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Fengguang,
> >
> > I met with Kostya at Intel Tech Days and he had some compelling arguments
> > for including some of these tests.
> >
> > Dave H: I took a quick look at Kasan, which appears to require an existing
> > config option (CONFIG_KASAN) for dynamic memory access checking using
> > shadow memory. Is this something you would like to see added to 0-day? Do
> > we have anything today which provides comparable coverage?
> >
> > Combining Kasan and other existing kernel integrity checking, the
> > syzkaller fuzz tester is showing promising results and the reports come in
> > the form of kernel oops and similar things which we already check for in
> > 0-day.
> >
> > For the others on Cc, do you have additional context for or against
> > including syzkaller and kasan in 0day?
> >
> > Fengguang, what are your thoughts on including these in 0-day?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Darren Hart
> > Intel Open Source Technology Center
> >
> > On 4/12/16, 10:24 PM, "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc@google.com<mailto:
> > kcc(a)google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > CC-ing more people after today's conversation at the Intel Tech Days.
> >
> > We'd like to add kasan and syzkaller [1,2,3,4] to the 0-day kbuild system.
> > We believe this has a large potential to find old bugs and prevent
> > regressions in the Kernel.
> > How do we achieve this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --kcc
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/google/syzkaller
> > [2] https://github.com/google/syzkaller/wiki/Found-Bugs
> > [3] https://lwn.net/Articles/677764/
> > [4] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kasan.txt
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:49 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com
> > <mailto:drysdale@google.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Fengguang / LKP-folk,
> >
> > Quick question -- how easy is it to add extra builds/tests/checks to
> > your marvellous 0-day kbuild system?
> >
> > The reason I ask is that I've recently been exploring syzkaller [1],
> > which is a system call fuzzer written by some of my colleagues here at
> > Google (cc'ed).  Although it's fairly new, it has uncovered a bunch of
> > kernel bugs already [2] so I wondered if it might be a good candidate
> > for inclusion in the 0-day checks at some point.
> >
> > (As an aside, I'm in the process of writing an article about syzkaller
> > for LWN, which might also expose it to more folk.)
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/google/syzkaller
> > [2] https://github.com/google/syzkaller/wiki/Found-Bugs
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list
> LKP(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp