linux-cve-announce - Re: CVE-2021-47188: scsi: ufs: core: Improve SCSI abort handling

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: <2024080630-cinema-jukebox-8e5e@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:41:34 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Cengiz Can <cengiz.can@...onical.com>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org, security@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2021-47188: scsi: ufs: core: Improve SCSI abort handling

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 07:48:13PM +0300, Cengiz Can wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm trying to figure out the security impact here:
> 
> > That warning is triggered by the following statement:
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON(lrbp->cmd);
> 
> This is just a fix to silence a warning. How is this worthy of a CVE? What was
> the criteria here?
> 
> If there are security implications of not nullifying `lrbp->cmd`, shouldn't they
> be noted in the CVE description?

CVE descriptions come directly from the kernel changelog text.  If you
wish them to say something else, please submit a patch against that text
and we can apply that.

> If this just a fix to the warning, this CVE should be rejected.

If userspace can trigger a WARN_ON() then the machine can be rebooted if
panic-on-warn is enabled, and so it requires a CVE assignment.

thanks

greg k-h