netdev - "general protection fault in sctp_ulpevent_notify_peer_addr_change" and "general protection fault in sctp_ulpevent_nofity_peer_addr

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:18:00 +0800
From:   慕冬亮 <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
To:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, marcelo.leitner@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...driver.com, vyasevich@...il.com,
        rkovhaev@...il.com,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: "general protection fault in sctp_ulpevent_notify_peer_addr_change"
 and "general protection fault in sctp_ulpevent_nofity_peer_addr_change"
 should share the same root cause

Dear developers,

I find that "general protection fault in l2cap_sock_getsockopt" and
"general protection fault in sco_sock_getsockopt" may be duplicated
bugs from the same root cause.

First, by comparing the PoC similarity after own minimization, we find
they share the same PoC. Second, the stack traces for both bug reports
are the same except for the last function. And the different last
functions are due to a function name change (typo fix) from
"sctp_ulpevent_nofity_peer_addr_change" to
"sctp_ulpevent_notify_peer_addr_change"

--
My best regards to you.

     No System Is Safe!
     Dongliang Mu