netdev - your netlink permission checks backport to v3.4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	wangyufen@...wei.com
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: your netlink permission checks backport to v3.4

I don't think you properly compile tested this code:

diff --git a/net/decnet/dn_dev.c b/net/decnet/dn_dev.c
index c00e307..b79ce1e 100644
--- a/net/decnet/dn_dev.c
+++ b/net/decnet/dn_dev.c
@@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ int dn_dev_ioctl(unsigned int cmd, void __user *arg)
 	case SIOCGIFADDR:
 		break;
 	case SIOCSIFADDR:
-		if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
+		if (!netlink_capable(skb, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
 			return -EACCES;
 		if (sdn->sdn_family != AF_DECnet)
 			return -EINVAL;

There is no "skb" variable in this function.

I think we're at the point where this backport makes no sense to submit
to the -stable tree.

Multiple rounds of attempting to backport these changes has been tries
and all such attempts have had problems.  Compile problems, authorship
errors, lack of follow-up bug fixes, etc.

This is why I did not try to backport these changes to v3.4 and
earlier.  The possiblity for introducing more regressions is larger
than the benefit from including these changes.

Please do not ask me to include this backport into my v3.4 -stable
series submissions any longer, thank you.

Sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html