linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count

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]

Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 12:21:54 +0200
From: Davide Benini <davide.benini@...e.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>, linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around
 sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

On 22/05/24 07:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
>>>> READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
>>>> sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
>>>> how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
>>>> was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
>>>> timeouts and delays.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything I am missing?
>>>
>>> Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.
>>
>> please also revoke all others touching the same function.
> 
> I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see
> some that reference the same type of issue in the same file:
> 	CVE-2024-27420
> 	CVE-2024-27421
> 	CVE-2024-27430
> are those what you are referring to?  If not, which ones do you think
> also should be revoked?

It seems all the CVEs in the range [CVE-2024-27420, CVE-2024-27430] are of the same kind.
Shouldn't all be revoked?

Thanks
Davide Benini