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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2024052540-shallot-hypnosis-1653@gregkh> Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 15:28:47 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> Cc: Davide Benini <davide.benini@...e.com>, cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>, linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 22-05-24 12:21:54, Davide Benini wrote: > > On 22/05/24 07:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding > > > > > > READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with > > > > > > sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see > > > > > > how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write > > > > > > was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely > > > > > > timeouts and delays. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything I am missing? > > > > > > > > > > Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now. > > > > > > > > please also revoke all others touching the same function. > > > > > > I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see > > > some that reference the same type of issue in the same file: > > > CVE-2024-27420 > > > CVE-2024-27421 > > > CVE-2024-27430 > > > are those what you are referring to? If not, which ones do you think > > > also should be revoked? > > > > It seems all the CVEs in the range [CVE-2024-27420, CVE-2024-27430] are of the same kind. > > Shouldn't all be revoked? > > Yes all these > bc76645ebdd0 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_link_fails_count") > b5dffcb8f71b ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_routing_control") > f99b494b4043 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_no_activity_timeout") > a2e706841488 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_requested_window_size") > 43547d869943 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_busy_delay") > 806f462ba902 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_acknowledge_delay") > e799299aafed ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_maximum_tries") > 60a7a152abd4 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_timeout") > 119cae5ea3f9 ("netrom: Fix data-races around sysctl_netrom_network_ttl_initialiser") > cfd9f4a740f7 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser") > 958d6145a6d9 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_default_path_quality") All now revoked, thanks. greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists