linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14.y] drivers core: Use sysfs_emit and sysfs_emit

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]

Message-ID: <7add9eef-0d17-6692-14f5-968a4d4778f0@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:02:16 +0200
From:   Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com, blamoreaux@...are.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14.y] drivers core: Use sysfs_emit and sysfs_emit_at for
 show(device *...) functions


On 07/10/2023 13:21, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 05:14:54AM -0700, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/3d033c33056d88bbe34d4ddb62afd05ee166ab9a.1600285923.git.joe@perches.com
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> [Harshit: backport to 4.14.y -- regenerated the diff with the help of
>> coccinelle script in driver/base/ directory.]
>> Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> Only compile tested. This fixes CVE-2022-20166.
>> It is not clear whether the CVE was assigned for a demonstrated issue
>> or just a theoretical one. In any case it's a good defensive measure
>> against future patches that may introduce a real issue if they assume
>> this patch is already there.
> 
> This is not needed in this kernel tree, so why are you attempting to add
> it?
> 
> And if you have questions about a CVE, as the entity that gave the cve
> out, they are responsible for it, not us!

We weren't sure where exactly the issue was, but figured the more
cautious approach would be to apply the patch regardless -- it does look
correct to me at a glance (doesn't suffer from the issues that Ben
pointed out with another submission, AFAICT).

But point taken, this falls under the "no theoretical issues" stable
submission rule.

Thanks,


Vegard