linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-46701: libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset dir

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: <8d0582ae-30f5-aa98-2778-423e81520507@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:44:29 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: yangerkun@...wei.com, chuck.lever@...cle.com, brauner@...nel.org,
 sashal@...nel.org, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 cve@...nel.org, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-46701: libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset
 dir

Hi,

在 2024/09/24 17:03, Greg KH 写道:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:35:33PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> Hi, all!
>>
>> This is a request to close this CVE.
>>
>> First of all, I think this really is not a kernel BUG, the deadloop
>> only exist in user side and user must rename between each readdir
>> syscall:
>>
>> while (readdr() > 0)
>> 	rename()
> 
> Sounds like a real thing that users can do, so why does this not fit the
> definition of "vulnerability" as documented by cve.org?

If user want to trigger the deadloop that readdir never return 0, then
user must keep rename inside this dir asynchronously and *never stop*,
this looks like shooting oneself in the foot for me.
> 
>> On the other hand, v6.6 is affected by this CVE, and this fix can't
>> be backported to v6.6 because the patchset [1] must be backported first
>> to expand offset from 32-bit to 64-bit.(This kind of refactor will
>> break kabi, hence it's not acceptable in our downstream kernels)
> 
> That's your business decision, and does not affect if we do, or do not,
> assign a CVE at all.  Go work with your management if you wish to change
> this as it does not pertain to the community in any way.

Yes, I understand, This is just the reason why I tried to close this
CVE, please ignore this.

BTW, if you still think this CVE is valid, can we bakport the refactor
patchset to v6.6 as well? I can sent the patches to 6.6 lts, just let me
know.

Thanks,
Kuai

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> .
>