linux-kernel - Re: stable-security kernel updates

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: <5718E362.5010402@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:27:46 -0400
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lwn@....net
Subject: Re: stable-security kernel updates

On 04/21/2016 10:13 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 04/21/2016, 03:54 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 04/21/2016 08:39 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:05:41PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>>> On 04/21/2016, 01:59 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>>>>>>> (CVE-2016-2085) 613317b EVM: Use crypto_memneq() for digest comparisons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does not exist in the CVE database/is not confirmed yet AFAICS.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now I am looking at the patch and I remember why I threw it away.
>>>>> crypto_memneq is not in 3.12 yet and I was not keen enough to backport  it.
>>> Which brings up the question, Sasha, why did you think these CVEs were
>>> relevant for 3.12?  What were you basing that list on?
>>
>> The EVM one? Because there exists a vulnerability in the 3.12 EVM code which
>> allows an attacker to essentially circumvent integrity checks, and the reason
>> it wasn't fixed was because a memory comparison helper function wasn't backported?
> 
> Because sometimes the breakage risk is much higher than fixing a bug.
> This one was evaluated for 3.12.55 and not included at that time for
> that very reason.
> 
> Now, given it it upstream for much longer, I reevaluated that and put
> that into the 3.12 tree.

Okay, fair enough.

>> For the other CVEs I've listed? I looked at what went in to 3.14 but not 3.12,
>> and audited the resulting list to confirm that the vulnerability existed on 3.12.
> 
> Where exactly is 0185604 and 096fe9e contained in 3.14? I actually don't
> see them in any of Greg's stable tree.

You're right, I looked at the 3.18 tree rather than 3.14, where there are:

8dc1d26 KVM: x86: Reload pit counters for all channels when restoring state
3fee639 KEYS: Fix handling of stored error in a negatively instantiated user key

This means that missing CVE fixes are quite common with stable trees?


Thanks,
Sasha