linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 053/118] Revert "Revert "xfrm: Fix stack-out-of-bounds read in xfrm_state

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: <20180116063339.cvslencknccrbs73@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jan 2018 07:33:39 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 053/118] Revert "Revert "xfrm: Fix
 stack-out-of-bounds read in xfrm_state_find.""

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:56:12AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:29 +0100
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:34:40PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> 4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >> 
> >> ------------------
> >> 
> >> From: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This reverts commit 94802151894d482e82c324edf2c658f8e6b96508.
> >> 
> >> It breaks transport mode when the policy template has
> >> wildcard addresses configured.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > Hm, this seems to be one revert too much.
> > 
> > commit 94802151894d482e82c324edf2c658f8e6b96508 reverted already
> > the buggy commit. Reverting the revert will bring the bug back.
> 
> Steffen, in the email where you asked me to revert that is the
> commit ID you referenced.

I think there was a misunderstanding. I asked you to queue the
commit with that ID to stable on Dec 23 (this commit ID is the
revert of the buggy patch). This commit was included to stable
on Jan 4 then:

https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg208727.html

So with this, everything was ok.

Maybe you started to look again into this because Nicolas Dichtel
(Cced) asked to queue this patch on Jan 5, the patch was already
in the stable tree (Jan 4) but probably not in an actual release
at this time.

> 
> We can drop this, but you need to then tell us whether 4.14 needs
> the revert any longer and if so what the correct SHA ID would
> be.

I think we can we can just drop this.

Unless Nicolas knows something that is still missing, v4.14.12 and
above should be ok as is.