On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 10:12 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > However, there can be some surprising things, for example, executing > one ioctl/setsockopt with data meant for another one, or these > 0xffffffffffffffff are actually mean 0 (for involved reasons), I think those fff was actually what was throwing me off. > or we > can simply have bugs in these descriptions so they don't match C > structures and then all data is messed/shifted. No, I think this part was OK. > If this representation does not make sense to you right away, your > best bet is looking at/running the C reproducer where you can see true > data layout: > > [...] Yeah, good point, I should've just done that. > > Ah, then again, now I see the fault injection - I guess dev_set_name() > > just failed and we didn't check the return value, will fix that. > > Yes, it's highly likely the root cause. The raw.log file shows there > there was an immediately preceding fault in kmalloc in the same > process, in a close stack. Yep, I submitted the fix now (with the correct reported-by). Also for the other one, the wiphy_register() warning. johannes
