linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-42143: orangefs: fix out-of-bounds fsid access

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: <20240801145925.2990-2-ailiop@suse.com>
Date: Thu,  1 Aug 2024 16:59:26 +0200
From: Anthony Iliopoulos <ailiop@...e.com>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	Mike Marshall <hubcap@...ibond.com>,
	cve@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-42143: orangefs: fix out-of-bounds fsid access

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 09:48:01AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Description
> ===========
> 
> In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> 
> orangefs: fix out-of-bounds fsid access
> 
> Arnd Bergmann sent a patch to fsdevel, he says:
> 
> "orangefs_statfs() copies two consecutive fields of the superblock into
> the statfs structure, which triggers a warning from the string fortification
> helpers"
> 
> Jan Kara suggested an alternate way to do the patch to make it more readable.
> 
> I ran both ideas through xfstests and both seem fine. This patch
> is based on Jan Kara's suggestion.
> 
> The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-42143 to this issue.

I think this one needs to be disputed as there was no actual out of
bounds access. The fix is basically just silencing the string
fortification warning which was due to:

memcpy(&buf->f_fsid, &ORANGEFS_SB(sb)->fs_id, sizeof(buf->f_fsid));

and fortify-string complaining as it detects that memory beyond
sb->fs_id is going to be accessed, which was intentional:

struct orangefs_sb_info_s {
	[...]
	__s32 fs_id;
	int id;
	[...]
};

The fix simply made the fs_id and id fields assignment explicit so as to
avoid the warning.

Mike, could you confirm that this should not be a CVE?

Regards,
Anthony