linux-kernel - Re: d7be102f29 ("cfg80211: initialize regulatory keys/database later"): kernel BUG at crypto/asymmetric_keys/public

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: <CA+55aFzviYrQa8Tn-R96nAL8YRv9t-wQfqOWNW05g6_WCWfgAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:46:15 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: d7be102f29 ("cfg80211: initialize regulatory keys/database
 later"): kernel BUG at crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c:80!

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-4.8):
>
> commit: d7be102f2945a626f55e0501e52bb31ba3e77b81 ("cfg80211: initialize regulatory keys/database later")

The attached 'dmesg.xz' doesn't actually match the kernel or the
report. Very odd.

> [    8.602885] kernel BUG at crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c:80!

In that reported kernel, that is

    80          BUG_ON(!sig->digest);

so the public key signature has no digest.

> [    8.607873] Call Trace:
> [    8.607873]  x509_check_for_self_signed+0xbe/0xf0
> [    8.607873]  x509_cert_parse+0x130/0x190
> [    8.607873]  x509_key_preparse+0x23/0x1a0
> [    8.607873]  asymmetric_key_preparse+0x4a/0x80
> [    8.607873]  key_create_or_update+0x122/0x430
> [    8.607873]  regulatory_init_db+0xfe/0x1c2
> [    8.607873]  do_one_initcall+0x4c/0x1a0
> [    8.607873]  kernel_init_freeable+0x111/0x195
> [    8.607873]  kernel_init+0xa/0xf0
> [    8.607873]  ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
> [    8.607873] Code: c1 48 8b 7d 20 4c 89 f6 e8 97 e0 35 00 85 c0 b8 7f ff ff ff 44 0f 45 e8 eb c1 b8 ea ff ff ff e9 7d fe ff ff e8 7b 69 e5 ff 0f 0b <0f> 0b 0f 0b 0f 0b 41 bd f4 ff ff ff e9 57 fe ff ff 0f 1f 84 00
> [    8.607873] RIP: public_key_verify_signature+0x267/0x280 RSP: ffffc9000000bbd8

I'm not seeing why it would ever be ok to do BUG_ON() instead of just
returning an error, though.

DavidH?

                 Linus