netdev - Re: [net-next] can: isotp: sanitize CAN ID checks in isotp

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]

Date:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:29:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Cc:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+2339c27f5c66c652843e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [net-next] can: isotp: sanitize CAN ID checks in isotp_bind()

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:35:58 +0100 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 16.03.22 02:51, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:37:48 +0100 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:  
> >> Syzbot created an environment that lead to a state machine status that
> >> can not be reached with a compliant CAN ID address configuration.
> >> The provided address information consisted of CAN ID 0x6000001 and 0xC28001
> >> which both boil down to 11 bit CAN IDs 0x001 in sending and receiving.
> >>
> >> Sanitize the SFF/EFF CAN ID values before performing the address checks.
> >>
> >> Fixes: e057dd3fc20f ("can: add ISO 15765-2:2016 transport protocol")
> >> Reported-by: syzbot+2339c27f5c66c652843e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> >> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>  
> > 
> > CC Marc, please make sure you CC maintainers.  
> 
> Oh, that would have been better! I'm maintaining the CAN network layer 
> stuff together with Marc and there was no relevant stuff in can-next to 
> be pulled in the next days. So I sent it directly to hit the merge 
> window and had all of us in the reply to the syzbot report.
> 
> Will CC Marc next time when posting to netdev only!
> 
> Maybe I treated this patch more urgent than it needed to be handled 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Heh, I did think to myself "why is Oliver sending this directly" 
but wasn't confident enough to conclude that it's intentional :)
Feel free to add any random info / context under the --- marker
in a patch.