[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201223085931.GA2683@andrea>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:59:31 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Saruhan Karademir <skarade@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 40/66] hv_netvsc: Validate number of
allocated sub-channels
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 02:47:56AM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 6:22 PM
> >
> > From: "Andrea Parri (Microsoft)" <parri.andrea@...il.com>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit 206ad34d52a2f1205c84d08c12fc116aad0eb407 ]
> >
> > Lack of validation could lead to out-of-bound reads and information
> > leaks (cf. usage of nvdev->chan_table[]). Check that the number of
> > allocated sub-channels fits into the expected range.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Saruhan Karademir <skarade@...rosoft.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri (Microsoft) <parri.andrea@...il.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>
> > Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hyperv/20201118153310.112404-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/hyperv/rndis_filter.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
>
> Sasha -- This patch is one of an ongoing group of patches where a Linux
> guest running on Hyper-V will start assuming that hypervisor behavior might
> be malicious, and guards against such behavior. Because this is a new
> assumption, these patches are more properly treated as new functionality
> rather than as bug fixes. So I would propose that we *not* bring such patches
> back to stable branches.
Thank you, Michael. Just to confirm, I agree with Michael's assessment
above and I join his proposal to *not* backport such patches to stable.
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists