From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3692327439913853561==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Philip Li To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: Extending the 0-day system with syzkaller? Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:41:19 +0800 Message-ID: <20160428014119.GB28943@intel.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: --===============3692327439913853561== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 re= quires new gcc, is this still be true? Thanks > = > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Hart, Darren w= rote: > = > > Hi Fengguang, > > > > I met with Kostya at Intel Tech Days and he had some compelling argumen= ts > > for including some of these tests. > > > > Dave H: I took a quick look at Kasan, which appears to require an exist= ing > > 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(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 syst= em. > > 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 > > 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 --===============3692327439913853561==--