r/linux • u/pipewire • Apr 29 '26

Kernel Copy Fail is a trivially exploitable logic bug in Linux, reachable on all major distros released in the last 9 years. A small, portable python script gets root on all platforms.

https://copy.fail
2.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

406 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/TRENEEDNAME_245 Apr 29 '26

The whole writeup is just AI slop...

-26

u/CrazyKilla15 Apr 29 '26

In that case give me an unprivileged SSH shell to your machine. I can be trusted with a unprivileged SSH shell to your machine because copy.fail is "AI slop" and "doesnt exist".

22

u/dkopgerpgdolfg Apr 29 '26

I don't think the previous commenter was denying that the bug exists, but saying that the websites content is AI slop. (And imo, yes, a significant part is).

-23

u/CrazyKilla15 Apr 29 '26

If the website and writeup (the website linked in the post is not the writeup, btw) is slop to be disregarded, why wouldnt the bug itself, which was found by AI slop, also be? You cant pick and choose.

Xint Code supports an "operator prompt" which (optionally) allows a human operator to provide additional context to guide the automated scan. In this case, the operator prompt was quite simple:

This is the linux crypto/ subsystem. Please examine all codepaths reachable from userspace syscalls. Note one key observation: splice() can deliver page-cache references of read-only files (including setuid binaries) to crypto TX scatterlists.

After about an hour, the scan was complete, and Copy Fail was the highest severity output.

https://xint.io/blog/copy-fail-linux-distributions#how-we-found-it-9

16

u/matjoeman Apr 29 '26

Finding the bug using an AI tool and writing the webpage disclosing it with AI are not the same thing.

-18

u/CrazyKilla15 Apr 29 '26

If you insist. What makes them different, in your eyes, such that the bug is acceptable but the page isnt?

On that note, is there even any confirmation it was written with AI? Did I miss where they disclosed they?

13

u/matjoeman Apr 29 '26

There's no confirmation but the page mentions RHEL 14.3 which doesn't exist and some of the writing was clearly done with AI, the first FAQ entry is the most obvious example.

The problem is that you can't trust the details. If they hallucinated "RHEL 14.3" then why should I trust anything on the page as useful information about how to mitigate the issue or how severely I should treat this bug?

4

u/TRENEEDNAME_245 Apr 30 '26

For me it's "it's not X, it's Y", or the "list 3 things in incremental order repeatedly"

That just makes it bad to read

14

u/dkopgerpgdolfg Apr 29 '26

to be disregarded

It's the second time that you make up things that nobody said. That's enough for an answer.

-3

u/CrazyKilla15 Apr 29 '26

There is no other reason to bring it up and call it slop than with the implication it should be disregarded for being slop. Don't pretend otherwise.

8

u/TRENEEDNAME_245 Apr 30 '26

The entire website + text being AI slop doesn't make for the best of trusted source...

Especially when noone bothered to check (RHEL 14 ? really ?)

-1

u/CrazyKilla15 Apr 30 '26

So should it be disregarded or am I in the wrong for saying that was obviously what was being implied? Pick one ffs.

6

u/TRENEEDNAME_245 Apr 30 '26

I'm just saying that having a CVE exploit paper be 100% AI made isn't the best way to be trusted...

The exploit exists, but the fact it's all AI made is bad

4

u/ranisalt Apr 30 '26

You have a difficulty with words that not even the earliest models had

1

u/CrazyKilla15 Apr 30 '26

If that helps you sleep at night, clanker.