netdev - Re: Fixing CVE-2017-16939 in v4.4.y and possibly v3.18.y

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:05:56 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fixing CVE-2017-16939 in v4.4.y and possibly v3.18.y

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 04:20:40PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/01/2017 11:48 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:37:40AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The fix for CVE-2017-16939 has been applied to v4.9.y, but not to v4.4.y
> > > and older kernels. However, I confirmed that running the published POC
> > > (see https://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/3535) does crash a 4.4
> > > kernel.
> > > 
> > > I confirmed that the following two patches fix the problem in v4.4.y.
> > > Please consider applying them to v4.4.y (and possibly v3.18.y).
> > > 
> > > fc9e50f5a5a4e ("netlink: add a start callback for starting a netlink dump")
> > > 1137b5e2529a8 ("ipsec: Fix aborted xfrm policy dump crash")
> > > 
> > > My apologies for the noise if this is already under consideration.
> > 
> > It's a bit too big hammer. As Nicolai Stange noticed when we were
> 
> The hammer is just as big as the upstream hammer. Personally I prefer the
> upstream patch; I don't see a reason to deviate from upstream just because
> the upstream solution is more complex than necessary.
> 
> > handling this for SLE12 (where fc9e50f5a5a4e would break kABI), it's
> 
> I didn't know that this is even a concern for stable releases. Is there
> some guideline that kABI changes should be avoided in stable releases ?

Nope, for now I don't care about kABI changes in stable releases.  I'd
almost always prefer to take the upstream patches exactly as-is.

thanks,

greg k-h