linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-42082: xdp: Remove WARN() from __xdp_reg_mem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fi2hlrhh5i3sczk5nkhqv7mi7pafv7obajht7waboy5jngbx6f@kjhzqlvkuh4k>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:50:25 +0800
From: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-42082: xdp: Remove WARN() from __xdp_reg_mem_model()

On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 10:55:00AM GMT, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 04:48:56PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 05:53:11PM GMT, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Description
> > > ===========
> > > 
> > > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> > > 
> > > xdp: Remove WARN() from __xdp_reg_mem_model()
> > > 
> > > syzkaller reports a warning in __xdp_reg_mem_model().
> > > 
> > > The warning occurs only if __mem_id_init_hash_table() returns an error. It
> > > returns the error in two cases:
> > > 
> > >   1. memory allocation fails;
> > >   2. rhashtable_init() fails when some fields of rhashtable_params
> > >      struct are not initialized properly.
> > > 
> > > The second case cannot happen since there is a static const rhashtable_params
> > > struct with valid fields. So, warning is only triggered when there is a
> > > problem with memory allocation.
> > > 
> > > Thus, there is no sense in using WARN() to handle this error and it can be
> > > safely removed.
> > [...]
> > 
> > The mention fix (below) simply removed a WARN_ON(1) call, so I believe
> > there's no security implication here.
> 
> If memory allocation fails, and panic-on-warn is enabled, this will
> cause the machine to reboot, hence the need for a CVE allocation.

I had not considered that. Thanks for the explanation.

Shung-Hsi