linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: restore missing clear

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712150533550.24015@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:43:01 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
cc:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>, stable@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: restore missing clear_highpage

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:01:51AM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > On 11/28/2007 01:55 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > tmpfs was misconverted to __GFP_ZERO in 2.6.11.  There's an unusual case in
> > > > which shmem_getpage receives the page from its caller instead of allocating.
> > > > We must cover this case by clear_highpage before SetPageUptodate, as before.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > What are the symptoms of the bug this fixes?
> > 
> > I've not seen it in practice, just noticed it while working on that
> > area in the code.  What's the polite way of describing these things
> > in public?  It's a vulnerability which might allow an attacker to
> > access data from inside the kernel which should have been zeroed -
> > in very limited circumstances I'd prefer not to have to devise and
> > announce.
> > 
> > It would also be wrong data, so could for example crash any program
> > rightly relying on uninitialized static data to be zeroed - in the
> > unlikely event that its data was coming via this route (in most setups
> > it never can do, perhaps I'd conclude that's true of all setups).  It
> > has escaped notice for nearly three years, so it's not a commonplace.
> > 
> > Further discussion offline if you like!
> 
> Can we get or is there already a CVE number?

I've not asked for one, so I don't suppose there is one: do go ahead
and get one if you wish (though of course it would have been better
earlier, so 2.6.22.15 and 2.6.23.10 could have cited it along with
their fix: sorry about that).

Hugh
--
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/