netdev - Re: net/sctp: stack-out-of-bounds in sctp

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: <CAP=GMUE3S5dxFu=r1XZWJzMeZ5XYriSQHY9-6YEbSFi4+j6wuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:01:14 +0800
From:	Baozeng <sploving1@...il.com>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, kaber@...sh.net,
	kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	marcelo.leitner@...il.com,
	Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	nhorman@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net/sctp: stack-out-of-bounds in sctp_getsockopt

2016-03-24 1:38 GMT+08:00, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:42:43AM +0800, Baozeng wrote:
>> 2016-03-22 23:27 GMT+08:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
>> > Untested patch would be :
>> >
>> > diff --git a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
>> > b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
>> > index 67b2e27999aa..fceb7354d169 100644
>> > --- a/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
>> > +++ b/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
>> > @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ find_inlist_lock(struct list_head *head, const char
>> > *name, const char *prefix,
>> >  {
>> >         return try_then_request_module(
>> >                         find_inlist_lock_noload(head, name, error,
>> > mutex),
>> > -                       "%s%s", prefix, name);
>> > +                       "%.*s%s", EBT_TABLE_MAXNAMELEN, prefix, name);
>> >  }
>> >
>> >  static inline struct ebt_table *
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for your quick patch. I tested it but it still reproduce the
>> bug. We should limit the length of the name,
>> not the prefix. The following patch fixs it.
>
> Could you give a try to this patch? Thanks.
>

I tested with your patch. It fixs the bug. Thanks.

-- 
     Best Regards,
                                                                 Baozeng  Ding