[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071109172135.GD26826@fieldses.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:21:35 -0500
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Przemyslaw Wegrzyn <czajnik@...jsoft.pl>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, joern@...fs.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Buffer overflow in CIFS VFS.
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Steve French wrote:
> > You are correct that the CIFS code calls SendReceive in cases in which
> > the buffer may be too small to fit a large SMB response, and that
> > should be fixed (e.g. to avoid possible overflows due to a server
> > bug), None of the eight cases (SMB TreeDisconnect, SMB uLogoff, SMB
> > Close, SMB FindClose etc.) in which a small buffer is passed in to
> > SendReceive return more than a few dozen bytes (and they are fixed
> > size responses), but I agree that we have to be safe (and we have seen
> > at least one server corrupt the bcc in the ulogoffX response and
> > another on the NTCreateX response) so it would be good to fix.
> >
> Well, mounting shares from untrusted server is quite uncommon, still
> buffer overrun shall be considered a serious issue, imho.
Also, a compromised machine on the same network could forge the
malicious reply in some cases, right?
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists