netdev - Re: BUG() can be hit in tcp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:33:01 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Vladis Dronov <vdronov@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Marco Grassi <marco.gra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: BUG() can be hit in tcp_collapse()

On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 12:00 -0500, Vladis Dronov wrote:
> Hello, Eric, Marco, all,
> 
> This is JFYI and a follow-up message.
> 
> A further investigation was made to find out the Linux kernel commit which has
> introduced the flaw. It appeared that previous Linux kernel versions are vulnerable,
> down to v3.6-rc1. This fact was hidden by 'net.ipv4.tcp_fastopen' set to 0 by default,
> and now it is easier to notice since kernel v3.12 due to commit 0d41cca490 where the
> default was changed to 1. With 'net.ipv4.tcp_fastopen' set to 1, previous Linux
> kernels (including RHEL-7 ones) are also vulnerable.
> 
> The bug is here since tcp-fastopen feature was introduced in kernel v3.6-rc1, the first
> commit when the reproducer starts to panic the kernel with net.ipv4.tcp_fastopen=1 set
> is cf60af03ca, which is a part of commit sequence 2100c8d2d9..67da22d23f introducing
> net-tcp-fastopen feature:
> 
> $ git bisect bad cf60af03ca4e71134206809ea892e49b92a88896
> cf60af03ca4e71134206809ea892e49b92a88896 is the first bad commit
> commit cf60af03ca4e71134206809ea892e49b92a88896
> Author: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
> Date:   Thu Jul 19 06:43:09 2012 +0000
> 
> So, ideally, the upstream commit ac6e780070 which fixes the bug should have
> "Fixes: cf60af03ca" statement, unfortunately, this investigation was not completed at
> the time the patch was accepted upstream. And unfortunately I do not see other way
> to add this information except making notes in a comment in the related code, which
> seems weird.

Well, the crash can happen way before Yuchung patch.

It is a 0-day bug.