Re: [BUG] drivers/usb: out-of-bounds in xhci_queue_bulk_tx()

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2026 at 06:07:39AM +0000, CO wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:36 PM Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 02:00:17AM +0000, CO wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:31 AM Xiang Mei <xmei5@asu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Th
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 5:50 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:43:58PM +0000, co wrote:
> > > > > > We found a bug reachable in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     path    drivers/usb/host
> > > > > >     crash   out-of-bounds in xhci_queue_bulk_tx()
> > > > > >     commit  bd5f485f3f02 ("Merge tag 'soc-arm-7.3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/soc/soc")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Config, environment, the sanitizer report and a C reproducer follow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Notes ===============================================================
> > > > > >     If you patch the bug based on our artifacts, a tag would be
> > > > > >     appreciated:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reported-by: co+fd80bc5967eb22c3@bugs.sh
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     Everything in this mail is validated by the reproducer below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     We also hold an LLM-generated root-cause analysis and a candidate
> > > > > >     patch. The patch passes an A/B test: the same reproducer panics the
> > > > > >     unpatched kernel and runs clean on the patched one. Neither has had
> > > > > >     human review, so both still require validation before you send or
> > > > > >     apply them. Available on:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         patch.diff  https://bugs.sh/b/fd80bc5967eb22c3/patch.diff
> > > > > >         report.md   https://bugs.sh/b/fd80bc5967eb22c3/report.md
> > > > >
> > > > > Please validate and ensure that this is correct before sending this to
> > > > > us.  No need for us to dig through random web links, right?
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the feedback, and sorry for the noise. Sending these before
> > > we had settled the format and talked to maintainers was our mistake.
> > >
> > > Let me make sure we understood your suggestions.
> > >
> > > # What we understood
> > >
> > > You want patches that a human has verified, and you do not want to
> > > have to follow links to find out what a report says. We should not
> > > have sent what we sent.
> >
> > That is correct, would you want anything different if we were to send
> > stuff to you?
> >
> 
> Nothing in particular, thanks. A Reported-by: tag and having the
> report closed would be appreciated!

If you submit a patch, you are the author and no reported-by is then
needed.

And we don't have anything to "close", so that's not really going to be
possible :)

thanks,

greg k-h