netdev - Re: Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

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: <2024032743-wildfire-amusing-1875@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:56:06 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, cve@...nel.org,
	Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 02:00:43PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ben
> > 
> > Yes, my understanding of the issue is that it is a false positive.
> > 
> > Some kernels might crash whenever LOCKDEP triggers, as for any WARNing.
> 
> Exactly.  So is it possible to trip this, false positive or otherwise?
> Being able to crash the kernel, even under false pretences, is
> definitely something we usually provide CVE allocations for.

lockdep warnings do not trigger a reboot for panic-on-warn, so I'll go
reject this cve, thanks.

greg k-h