[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025040233-tuesday-regroup-5c66@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:15:58 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, ematsumiya@...e.de,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-net@...r.kernel.org, sfrench@...ba.org, smfrench@...il.com,
wangzhaolong1@...wei.com, zhangchangzhong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH][SMB3 client] fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:09:19PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:18:37 +0100
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:15:44PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 12:49:50PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote:
> > > > > Yes, it seems the previous description might not have been entirely clear.
> > > > > I need to clearly point out that this patch, intended as the fix for CVE-2024-54680,
> > > > > does not actually address any real issues. It also fails to resolve the null pointer
> > > > > dereference problem within lockdep. On top of that, it has caused a series of
> > > > > subsequent leakage issues.
> > > >
> > > > If this cve does not actually fix anything, then we can easily reject
> > > > it, please just let us know if that needs to happen here.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > Yes, I can confirm that the patch for CVE-2024-54680 (commit e9f2517a3e18)
> > > should be rejected. Our analysis shows:
> > >
> > > 1. It fails to address the actual null pointer dereference in lockdep
> > >
> > > 2. It introduces multiple serious issues:
> > > 1. A socket leak vulnerability as documented in bugzilla #219972
> > > 2. Network namespace refcount imbalance issues as described in
> > > bugzilla #219792 (which required the follow-up mainline fix
> > > 4e7f1644f2ac "smb: client: Fix netns refcount imbalance
> > > causing leaks and use-after-free")
> > >
> > > The next thing we should probably do is:
> > > - Reverting e9f2517a3e18
> > > - Reverting the follow-up fix 4e7f1644f2ac, as it's trying to fix
> > > problems introduced by the problematic CVE patch
> >
> > Great, can you please send patches now for both of these so we can
> > backport them to the stable kernels properly?
>
> Sent to CIFS tree:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/20250402200319.2834-1-kuniyu@amazon.com/
You forgot to add a Cc: stable@ on the patches to ensure that they get
picked up properly for all stable trees :(
Can you redo them?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists