linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4.y] tcp: Fix missing range_truesize enlargement in the backport

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: <s5hin4b7rn8.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:15:07 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4.y] tcp: Fix missing range_truesize enlargement in the backport

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:11:21 +0200,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > The 4.4.y stable backport dc6ae4dffd65 for the upstream commit
> > 3d4bf93ac120 ("tcp: detect malicious patterns in
> > tcp_collapse_ofo_queue()") missed a line that enlarges the
> > range_truesize value, which broke the whole check.
> > 
> > Fixes: dc6ae4dffd65 ("tcp: detect malicious patterns in tcp_collapse_ofo_queue()")
> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > ---
> > 
> > Greg, this is a fix-up specific to 4.4.y stable backport that had a
> > slightly different form from upstream fix.  I haven't looked at the
> > older trees, but 4.9.y and later took the upstream fix as is, so this
> > patch isn't needed for them.
> > 
> > The patch hasn't been tested with the real test case, though; let me
> > know if the current code is intended.  Thanks!
> 
> Hm, I did the initial backport, and then Eric showed what I got wrong
> and fixed that up, so being still wrong is not inconceivable at all :)
> 
> Have you tried testing this with the reproducer?  That might be the best
> verification here.  If your testing proves to be good, I'll gladly take
> this patch, thanks!

No, I haven't tested it, just followed from the thread in the past
(and hope that our QA team will test that sooner or later :)
Will let you know if we find any issues in the current tree.

And, if the current code works as intended, it's great, of course.


thanks,

Takashi