Re: [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?] general protection fault in __ep_remove

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: syzbot <syzbot+045b454ab35fd82a35fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?] general protection fault in __ep_remove
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:31:13 -0600
Cc: brauner@xxxxxxxxxx, io-uring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, syzkaller-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <0000000000002d631f0615918f1e@google.com>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

This isn't related to io_uring at all, not sure why syzbot has this idea
that anything that involves task_work is iouring.

#syz set subsystems: fs

-- 
Jens Axboe

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?] general protection fault in __ep_remove
  - From: Pavel Begunkov

References:
- [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?] general protection fault in __ep_remove
  - From: syzbot

Prev by Date: [PATCH 6.8 114/172] fs/proc: remove redundant comments from /proc/bootconfig
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v2 04/34] md: port block device access to file
Previous by thread: [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?] general protection fault in __ep_remove
Next by thread: Re: [syzbot] [fs?] [io-uring?] general protection fault in __ep_remove
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Ext4 Filesystem] [Union Filesystem] [Filesystem Testing] [Ceph Users] [Ecryptfs] [NTFS 3] [AutoFS] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Cachefs] [Reiser Filesystem] [Linux RAID] [NTFS 3] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [CEPH Development]

Powered by Linux