linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tty: n_gsm: Avoid sleeping during .write() whilst atomic

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: <2023100511-unpeeled-dinginess-fefd@gregkh>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:05:43 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Starke <daniel.starke@...mens.com>,
        Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+5f47a8cea6a12b77a876@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tty: n_gsm: Avoid sleeping during .write() whilst
 atomic

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 06:59:50AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 04. 10. 23, 14:57, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > n_gsm is available on all the systems I have available.  The mention of
> > > > 'EXPERIMENTAL' in the module description appears to have zero effect on
> > > > whether distros choose to make it available or not.  If you're saying
> > > > that we know this module is BROKEN however, then perhaps we should mark
> > > > it as such.
> > > 
> > > Also, I think this requires root to set this line discipline to the
> > > console, right?  A normal user can't do that, or am I missing a code
> > > path here?
> > 
> > I haven't been testing long, but yes, early indications show that root
> > is required.
> 
> FWIW I concluded to the same yesterday, so I disputed the connected
> CVE-2023-31082. Waiting for mitre's ack/nack.

Trying to dispute obviously-wrong CVEs is a never-ending task.

Personally, it's fun to see who keeps popping up to attempt to resolve
this issue showing what companies have their security policies dictated
by a random government authority that can be modified by anyone :)

thanks,

greg k-h