linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix double free in selinux_netlbl_sock

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: <200801291213.54310.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:13:53 -0500
From:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, bunk@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix double free in selinux_netlbl_sock_setsid()

On Monday 28 January 2008 10:51:24 pm David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:20:26 -0500
>
> > As pointed out by Adrian Bunk, commit
> > 45c950e0f839fded922ebc0bfd59b1081cc71b70 caused a double-free when
> > security_netlbl_sid_to_secattr() fails.  This patch fixes this by
> > removing the netlbl_secattr_destroy() call from that function since we
> > are already releasing the secattr memory in
> > selinux_netlbl_sock_setsid().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
>
> Applied, and I'll queue this up for -stable too.

Thanks.  Sorry for not catching this in the first place.

> Please, when mentioning specific commits please also provide
> the changelog headline along with the SHA1 hash.
>
> The reason is that when this fix is moved over to another
> tree where the SHA1 of the causing change is different people
> studying your fix won't be able to find it without more stable
> contextual information.

Noted, I'll make sure to include the patch description in the future.  I 
wasn't aware that the hash took into account anything other than the 
individual commit it represented.  However, now that I think about it, since 
order is so critical it only makes sense to have the hash take into account 
at least the previous commit.

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp
--
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/