[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180105.121713.1854987792723191976.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:17:13 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
robsonde@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "xfrm: Fix stack-out-of-bounds read in
xfrm_state_find."
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:12:59 +0100
> Le 23/12/2017 à 17:09, Steffen Klassert a écrit :
>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:56:12AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:22:17 +0100
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:00:40AM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>>>>> This reverts commit c9f3f813d462c72dbe412cee6a5cbacf13c4ad5e.
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit breaks transport mode when the policy template
>>>>> has widlcard addresses configured, so revert it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
>>>>
>>>> David, can you please queue this one up for v4.14-stable?
>>>> Commit ID is 94802151894d482e82c324edf2c658f8e6b96508
>>>>
>>>> v4.14 is unusable for some people without this revert.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it adds back the stack out-of-bounds bug.
>>>
>>> If I queue up the revert, I would also need to queue up whatever
>>> follow-on you used to fix the out-of-bounds bug properly. Which
>>> commit is that?
>>
>> This is commit ddc47e4404b58f03e98345398fb12d38fe291512
>> ("xfrm: Fix stack-out-of-bounds read on socket policy lookup.")
>>
>> It is included in the pull request for the net tree that
>> I sent yesterday. The patch looks save, but not so sure
>> if it should go directly to stable. These bugs reported by
>> the syzbot are usually quite subtile and I already broke
>> something when I tried to fix the original stack out-of-bounds
>> bug. So maybe we should wait until the v4.15 release before
>> backporting...
>>
> This patch is still missing in the 4.14 stable. Without it, some IPsec scenarii
> are broken. Is there a plan to queue this patch for the 4.14 stable ?
I will in my next batch of stable submissions.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists