linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: network data corruption (bisected to e5a4b0bb803b)

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: <8b3126f66186015956e0f8090fb70532@triadic.us>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:26:48 -0400
From:	alexmcwhirter@...adic.us
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rlwinm@....org,
	chunkeey@...glemail.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: network data corruption (bisected to e5a4b0bb803b)

On 2016-07-27 20:31, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 04:45:43PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> > I highly expect both my issue and OP's issue to revolve not around
>> > commit e5a4b0bb803b specifically, but around other code that no longer
>> > behaves as expected because of it.
>> 
>> Indeed, and that fault address rounding bug occurs two other times
>> in arch/sparc/lib/user_fixup.c
>> 
>> The mentioned patchwork patch should fix the bug and I'll get that
>> into my sparc tree, merged, and queued up for -stable ASAP.
> 
> Plausible for sparc, but I don't see similar __copy_to_user_inatomic()
> bugs in case of x86_64...

I'm going to go ahead and say this is where my issue and the op's issue 
begin to branch apart from one another. He's seeing this on all incoming 
data, whereas i am only seeing it on ssl data and not on sun4v.

At this point i would say data from my issue is only going to cloud this 
issue as they seem to be two completely different issues revolving 
around the same commit. If i come across any relevant data for x86_64 
ill be sure to post it if this isn't resolved by then, but for now i'm 
going to refrain from submitting anything sparc related.