netdev - Re: BUG() can be hit in tcp

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:00:17 -0500 (EST)
From:   Vladis Dronov <vdronov@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Marco Grassi <marco.gra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: BUG() can be hit in tcp_collapse()

Hello, Eric, Marco, all,

This is JFYI and a follow-up message.

A further investigation was made to find out the Linux kernel commit which has
introduced the flaw. It appeared that previous Linux kernel versions are vulnerable,
down to v3.6-rc1. This fact was hidden by 'net.ipv4.tcp_fastopen' set to 0 by default,
and now it is easier to notice since kernel v3.12 due to commit 0d41cca490 where the
default was changed to 1. With 'net.ipv4.tcp_fastopen' set to 1, previous Linux
kernels (including RHEL-7 ones) are also vulnerable.

The bug is here since tcp-fastopen feature was introduced in kernel v3.6-rc1, the first
commit when the reproducer starts to panic the kernel with net.ipv4.tcp_fastopen=1 set
is cf60af03ca, which is a part of commit sequence 2100c8d2d9..67da22d23f introducing
net-tcp-fastopen feature:

$ git bisect bad cf60af03ca4e71134206809ea892e49b92a88896
cf60af03ca4e71134206809ea892e49b92a88896 is the first bad commit
commit cf60af03ca4e71134206809ea892e49b92a88896
Author: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 19 06:43:09 2012 +0000

So, ideally, the upstream commit ac6e780070 which fixes the bug should have
"Fixes: cf60af03ca" statement, unfortunately, this investigation was not completed at
the time the patch was accepted upstream. And unfortunately I do not see other way
to add this information except making notes in a comment in the related code, which
seems weird.

Best regards,
Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | Product Security Engineer