netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Fix a documentation bug wrt. ip_unprivileged_port

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: <CANP3RGcWkz+oR3qW4FAsijPSMrAGtUpcdfSbXvpcR9rT-=qQpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Nov 2019 01:16:35 -0800
From:   Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix a documentation bug wrt. ip_unprivileged_port_start

> Since this is a documentation _bug_ :) we probably need a Fixes tag.
> The mistake is almost 3 years old, could be worth giving the backport
> bots^W folks a chance to pick it up.
>
> Is this all the way from 4548b683b781 ("Introduce a sysctl that
> modifies the value of PROT_SOCK.") ?

Yes, indeed.
That commit adds the documentation itself, and:

// ipv4_local_port_range()
-               if (range[1] < range[0])
+               /* Ensure that the upper limit is not smaller than the lower,
+                * and that the lower does not encroach upon the privileged
+                * port limit.
+                */
+               if ((range[1] < range[0]) ||
+                   (range[0] < net->ipv4.sysctl_ip_prot_sock))

and

// ipv4_privileged_ports()

+       pports = net->ipv4.sysctl_ip_prot_sock;
+
+       ret = proc_dointvec_minmax(&tmp, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
+
+       if (write && ret == 0) {
+               inet_get_local_port_range(net, &range[0], &range[1]);
+               /* Ensure that the local port range doesn't overlap with the
+                * privileged port range.
+                */
+               if (range[0] < pports)
+                       ret = -EINVAL;
+               else
+                       net->ipv4.sysctl_ip_prot_sock = pports;
+       }

Anyway, I guess this means this commit should have:

Fixes: 4548b683b781 ("Introduce a sysctl that modifies the value of PROT_SOCK.")

(which is in v4.10-rc4-733-g4548b683b781)

Should I resubmit with the new tag, or will you just pick it up?