On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 02:34:08AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > I really wonder what mount is it happening to. BTW, how painful would > it be to teach syzcaller to turn those cascades of > NONFAILING(*(uint8_t*)0x20000080 = 0x12); > NONFAILING(*(uint8_t*)0x20000081 = 0); > NONFAILING(*(uint16_t*)0x20000082 = 0); > NONFAILING(*(uint32_t*)0x20000084 = 0xffffff9c); > NONFAILING(*(uint64_t*)0x20000088 = 0); > NONFAILING(*(uint64_t*)0x20000090 = 0x20000180); > NONFAILING(memcpy((void*)0x20000180, "./file0\000", 8)); > NONFAILING(*(uint32_t*)0x20000098 = 0); > NONFAILING(*(uint32_t*)0x2000009c = 0x80); > NONFAILING(*(uint64_t*)0x200000a0 = 0x23456); > .... > NONFAILING(syz_io_uring_submit(r[1], r[2], 0x20000080, 0)); > into something more readable? Bloody annoyance every time... Sure, I can > manually translate it into > struct io_uring_sqe *sqe = (void *)0x20000080; > char *s = (void *)0x20000180; > memset(sqe, '\0', sizeof(*sqe)); > sqe->opcode = 0x12; // IORING_OP_OPENAT? > sqe->fd = -100; // AT_FDCWD? > sqe->addr = s; > strcpy(s, "./file0"); > sqe->open_flags = 0x80; // O_EXCL??? > sqe->user_data = 0x23456; // random tag? > syz_io_uring_submit(r[1], r[2], (unsigned long)p, 0); > but it's really annoying as hell, especially since syz_io_uring_submit() > comes from syzcaller and the damn thing _knows_ that the third argument > is sodding io_uring_sqe, and never passed to anything other than > memcpy() in there, at that, so the exact address can't matter. ... especially since the native syzcaller reproducer clearly *does* have that information. Simply putting that into comments side-by-side with what gets put into C reproducer would be nice, especially if it goes with field names...
