netdev - Re: general protection fault in sock_def_error

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]

Message-ID: <CANX2M5aX=JnKD-8kPyAN0Q64HvLoSO+3LvNvuaxkexCgeDWZHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 12:24:59 -0700
From:   Dipanjan Das <mail.dipanjan.das@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, andriin@...com,
        sashal@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        steffen.klassert@...unet.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller@...glegroups.com, fleischermarius@...glemail.com,
        its.priyanka.bose@...il.com
Subject: Re: general protection fault in sock_def_error_report

On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 6:43 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> It is worth the effort if the problem is still in the latest kernel
> release as that is the only place that new development happens.

The problem does not exist in the latest release.

> If the issue is not reproducible on Linus's current releases, then finding the
> change that solved the problem is also good so that we can then backport
> it to the stable/long term kernel release for everyone to benefit from.

The change that solved the issue in the mainline is this:
341adeec9adad0874f29a0a1af35638207352a39

Here is one additional piece of information that you may find useful.
Though we originally reported the bug for the longterm release
v5.4.206, we noticed that the same issue exists in another longterm
release v5.10.131, too. We manually bisected the commits in those two
longterm branches to find the bug-introducing commits. We observe that
the commits d6e981ec9491be5ec46d838b1151e7edefe607f5 and
ff6eeb627898c179aac421af5d6515d3f50b84df introduced the bug in 5.4.y
and 5.10.y branches, respectively.

-- 
Thanks and Regards,

Dipanjan