linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <511BB5EA.7020007@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:48:58 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	dgilbert@...erlog.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command
 whitelist (CVE-2012-4542)

Il 13/02/2013 16:35, Douglas Gilbert ha scritto:
>>
>> Ping? I'm not even sure what tree this should host these patches...
> 
> You are whitelisting SCSI commands so obviously the SCSI tree
> and the patch spills over into the block tree.

Yeah, an Acked-by is in order but it's not clear from whom and for whom.

> Can't see much point in ack-ing the sg changes since most
> of the action is at higher levels.
> 
> The question I have is what existing code will this change
> break (and will I being getting emails from peeved
> developers)?

An unlikely situation is that a vendor-specific command in the "low"
range (i.e. not 0xc0..0xff) conflicted with an MMC command, so it
happened to be enabled.  That will now break, but only if executed
without CAP_SYS_RAWIO.

Nothing will change for programs executed with CAP_SYS_RAWIO.

I have not disabled any standards-defined command that used to be
enabled, and on the contrary I enabled a few of them, so this could
potentially lead to less emails from peeved developers, too.

> Is 8 lines of documentation changes enough? My guess is
> that SG_IO ioctl pass-through users will be tripped up
> and it won't be obvious to them to look at
>     Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
> for enlightenment; especially if they are using a char
> device node from the bsg, sg or st drivers to issue SG_IO.

The command whitelist was not documented before.  It's quite likely that
any documentation except the code itself would not be updated the next
time the whitelist is touched.

Paolo
--
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/