[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <92ec3ce16c7e640de19b44165e2bb88b63dd2478.camel@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:06:42 +0000
From: Siddh Raman Pant <siddh.raman.pant@...cle.com>
To: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: "cve@...nel.org" <cve@...nel.org>,
"linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: CVE-2024-26920: tracing/trigger: Fix to return
error if failed to alloc snapshot
On Thu, Apr 18 2024 at 14:34:57 +0200, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:59:41AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> > >
> > > tracing/trigger: Fix to return error if failed to alloc snapshot
> > >
> > > Fix register_snapshot_trigger() to return error code if it failed to
> > > allocate a snapshot instead of 0 (success). Unless that, it will register
> > > snapshot trigger without an error.
> >
> > This commit is problematic on 4.19.y, 5.4.y, 5.10.y, and 5.15.y,
> > and should be reversed, and this CVE should be rejected for those
> > versions.
>
> Then please submit a patch for this.
Sure.
> But note, CVEs are not for specific versions, sorry. We give a hint as
> to what kernel versions might be affected, but we don not assign CVE to
> versions.
Cool.
> >
> > The return value should be 0 on failure, because in the functions
> > event_trigger_callback() and event_enable_trigger_func(), we have:
> >
> > ret = cmd_ops->reg(glob, trigger_ops, trigger_data, file);
> > /*
> > * The above returns on success the # of functions enabled,
> > * but if it didn't find any functions it returns zero.
> > * Consider no functions a failure too.
> > */
> > if (!ret) {
> > ret = -ENOENT;
> >
> > Thus, the commit breaks this assumption.
> >
> > This commit needs b8cc44a4d3c1 ("tracing: Remove logic for registering
> > multiple event triggers at a time") as a prerequisite, as it removes
> > the above.
>
> Should we just take that patch instead?
The series in which the patch is posted is here:
- https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1644010575.git.zanussi@kernel.org/
- https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1641823001.git.zanussi@kernel.org/
Seems like some good tracing subsystem refactoring. So if I understand
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst correctly, I would say we
should not.
Thanks,
Siddh
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists