[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW2PR2101MB1052FDCC72FE8D5735553E3CD7DE9@MW2PR2101MB1052.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 02:47:56 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Andrea Parri (Microsoft)" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
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
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.
Michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists