linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-26827: i2c: qcom-geni: Correct I2C TRE sequence

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a1f56653f2e2be923ed47f7e968230ca8a856553.camel@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:56:33 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-26827: i2c: qcom-geni: Correct I2C TRE sequence

Hi Greg,

On Wed, 2024-04-17 at 11:44 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Description
> ===========
> 
> In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> 
> i2c: qcom-geni: Correct I2C TRE sequence
> 
> For i2c read operation in GSI mode, we are getting timeout
> due to malformed TRE basically incorrect TRE sequence
> in gpi(drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c) driver.
> (...)

I was assigned the task to backport this security fix to the SUSE
kernels. However, from the description, I fail to see how this fix
qualifies as a security fix. I can't find the reason why a CVE was
assigned to the issue.

What is the considered attack vector? Or if there is no attack vector,
what consequence does this bug have, which would put the system
security at stake?

>From my perspective, all we have here is a functional bug in newly
introduced code. It's not even a regression.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support