netdev - Re: A missing check bug and an inconsistent check bug

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAA-qYXiVqh4LU+7Qv1_RFUgUM4Ph6LWdC0tqS4CTFqtSPu_LZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:36:02 +0800
From:   Jinmeng Zhou <jjjinmeng.zhou@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     isdn@...ux-pingi.de, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        shenwenbosmile@...il.com
Subject: Re: A missing check bug and an inconsistent check bug

Dear maintainers,

I guess the bug fix has a problem.
I check the stable version 5.16.9, base_sock_create() uses capable(),
the code is same as v5.10.7.
Should it use ns-aware check, ns_capable()?
Because capable() checks init_user_ns, not the current namespace.

Thanks again!

Best regards,
Jinmeng Zhou

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:54 AM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/15/22 04:30, Jinmeng Zhou wrote:
> > Dear maintainers,
> >
> > Hi, our tool finds a missing check bug(v4.18.5),
> > and an inconsistent check bug (v5.10.7) using static analysis.
> > We are looking forward to having more experts' eyes on this. Thank you!
> >
> > Before calling sk_alloc() with SOCK_RAW type,
> > there should be a permission check, ns_capable(ns,CAP_NET_RAW).
> >
> > In kernel v4.18.5, there is no check in base_sock_create().
> > However, v5.10.7 adds a check.  (1) So is it a missing check bug?
>
> Same answer, v4.18 is not a stable kernel, not sure why anyone would
> care about v4.18.5
>
>
>