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: <ZlB5l40ahqW8PGlC@tiehlicka>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:27:19 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Davide Benini <davide.benini@...e.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, cve@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>,
	linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around
 sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

On Wed 22-05-24 12:21:54, Davide Benini wrote:
> 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?

Yes all these
bc76645ebdd0 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_link_fails_count")
b5dffcb8f71b ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_routing_control")
f99b494b4043 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_no_activity_timeout")
a2e706841488 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_requested_window_size")
43547d869943 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_busy_delay")
806f462ba902 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_acknowledge_delay")
e799299aafed ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_maximum_tries")
60a7a152abd4 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_timeout")
119cae5ea3f9 ("netrom: Fix data-races around sysctl_netrom_network_ttl_initialiser")
cfd9f4a740f7 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser")
958d6145a6d9 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_default_path_quality")

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ