linux-kernel - Re: KASAN: vmalloc-out-of-bounds Write in snd_pcm_hw

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 10:13:26 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dipanjan Das <mail.dipanjan.das@...il.com>
Cc:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
        consult.awy@...il.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com,
        fleischermarius@...glemail.com, its.priyanka.bose@...il.com
Subject: Re: KASAN: vmalloc-out-of-bounds Write in snd_pcm_hw_params

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 04:24:12PM -0700, Dipanjan Das wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:25 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the analysis.  A good news is that, at least for the
> > vmalloc() case, it's a kind of false-positive; vmalloc() always takes
> > the full pages, so practically seen, the size is page-aligned.  It's
> > fooling the memory checker, though.
> >
> > But the similar problem could be seen with genalloc calls, and this
> > was fixed by the upstream commit
> > 5c1733e33c888a3cb7f576564d8ad543d5ad4a9e
> >     ALSA: memalloc: Align buffer allocations in page size
> >
> > I suppose you can simply backport this commit to 5.10.y.  Could you
> > confirm that this fixes your problem?
> 
> We confirm that the patch you proposed fixes the problem (blocks the
> reproducer). How do we proceed with getting the issue fixed? Do we
> send a patch according to the steps detailed here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html?

Normally, yes, that is the correct process.  But as Takashi mentioned, I
already picked it up as I happened to see this thread.

thanks,

greg k-h