oss-sec mailing list archives

Re: Re: CVE-2009-1265 kernel: af_rose/x25: Sanity check the maximum user frame size


From: Willy Tarreau <w () 1wt eu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:26:35 +0200

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 02:54:06PM +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Eugene,

On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:58:55PM +0800, Eugene Teo wrote:
{nr,rose,x25}_sendmsg() functions need to have sanity checks on the
packet size, otherwise the sizes can wrap and end up sending garbage.

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10423
http://git.kernel.org/linus/83e0bbcbe2145f160fbaa109b0439dae7f4a38a9
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1265

This affects both 2.4.x and 2.6.x if CONFIG_{NETROM,ROSE,X25} are enabled.

I already have it in my queue, just did not have time to merge it yet.
Thanks for the reminder anyway, I really appreciate it ;-)

You will need this too :)

upstream commit: cc29c70dd581f85ee7a3e7980fb031f90b90a2ab

Patch "af_rose/x25: Sanity check the maximum user frame size"
(commit 83e0bbcbe2145f160fbaa109b0439dae7f4a38a9) from Alan Cox got
locking wrong. If we bail out due to user frame size being too large,
we must unlock the socket beforehand.

OK thanks Eugene!
Willy

Just checked, but nr_sendmsg() does not use lock_sock()/release_sock() in
2.4, so the patch above did not bring any regression. I don't know if this
lock is needed there. It has always been there in 2.6 and never in 2.4.
Either it's a long-time missed patch or just not needed here. I won't touch
it as I have no way to test it and nobody complains ;-)

Regards,
Willy


Current thread: