linux-cve-announce - Re: CVE-2023-52734: net: sched: sch: Bounds check priority

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2024052824-justice-lair-14e6@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 21:06:39 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: CVE-2023-52734: net: sched: sch: Bounds check priority

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Is this really soemthing that should be getting a CVE assigned?
> First the fix is incomplete - 9cec2aaffe96 ("net: sched: sch: Fix off by one in htb_activate_prios()")

Incomplete fixes are still part of a fix :)

> Second is this even real problem? https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y9V3mBmLUcrEdrTV@pop-os.localdomain/
> suggests it is not.

Ah, good catch, I didn't see that.  I'll go revoke this as it's not
doing anything.

> And third, WARN_ONs are considered a real deal by CVE team because
> somebody might be running with panic_on_warn. This patch adds one!

Yes, but if you can't hit that by anything from userspace, it's not an
issue and just dead code.  We'll have to wait for a future syzbot report
to prove that wrong :)

thanks for the review!

greg k-h