linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 082/136] CIFS: avoid using MID 0xFFFF

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]

Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:46:56 +0000
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>,
        "Aurelien Aptel" <aaptel@...e.com>,
        "Ronnie Sahlberg" <lsahlber@...hat.com>,
        "Roberto Bergantinos Corpas" <rbergant@...hat.com>,
        "Steve French" <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 082/136] CIFS: avoid using MID 0xFFFF

3.16.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Roberto Bergantinos Corpas <rbergant@...hat.com>

commit 03d9a9fe3f3aec508e485dd3dcfa1e99933b4bdb upstream.

According to MS-CIFS specification MID 0xFFFF should not be used by the
CIFS client, but we actually do. Besides, this has proven to cause races
leading to oops between SendReceive2/cifs_demultiplex_thread. On SMB1,
MID is a 2 byte value easy to reach in CurrentMid which may conflict with
an oplock break notification request coming from server

Signed-off-by: Roberto Bergantinos Corpas <rbergant@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 fs/cifs/smb1ops.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

--- a/fs/cifs/smb1ops.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/smb1ops.c
@@ -180,6 +180,9 @@ cifs_get_next_mid(struct TCP_Server_Info
 	/* we do not want to loop forever */
 	last_mid = cur_mid;
 	cur_mid++;
+	/* avoid 0xFFFF MID */
+	if (cur_mid == 0xffff)
+		cur_mid++;
 
 	/*
 	 * This nested loop looks more expensive than it is.