netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

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

Date:   Sat, 6 Feb 2021 14:29:24 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file
> > in a non-"standard" way ...  though the "standard" isn't documented, so
> > they can be excused.  The result is a possible leak - of memory in one
> > case, of references to a 'transport' in the other.
> > 
> > These three patches:
> >  1/ document and explain the problem
> >  2/ fix the problem user in x86
> >  3/ fix the problem user in net/sctp
> 
> 1f4aace60b0e ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration code and
> interface") was August 2018, so I don't think "recent" applies here?
> 
> I didn't look closely, but it appears that the sctp procfs file is
> world-readable.  So we gave unprivileged userspace the ability to leak
> kernel memory?
> 
> So I'm thinking that we aim for 5.12-rc1 on all three patches with a cc:stable?

I'd rather take the sctp patch sooner, we'll send another batch 
of networking fixes for 5.11, anyway. Would that be okay with you?