Re: CVE request: multiple kernel stack memory disclosures

[Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg () gmail com>]

I'll omit descriptions here to save space, since they were already
provided.  I'll keep the same organization as last time, just to make
it easier.  Issues that haven't been fixed yet are for the most part
planned for 2.6.37.  Patches were submitted for all issues, so it's
mostly just a matter of time.

---

TIOCGICOUNT stack leaks:

usb/serial/mos*.c
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc5
Affects >= 2.6.19

drivers/serial/serial_core.c
Not fixed yet (Alan Cox's fix will be in 2.6.37)
Affects >= 2.6.0

drivers/char/amiserial.c
Not fixed yet (Alan Cox's fix will be in 2.6.37)
Affects >= 2.6.0, >= 2.4.0

drivers/char/nozomi.c
Not fixed yet (Alan Cox's fix will be in 2.6.37)
Affects >= 2.6.25

drivers/net/usb/hso.c (CVE-2010-3298)
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc5
Affects >= 2.6.29

---

FBIOGET_VBLANK stack leaks:

drivers/video/sis/sis_main.c
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc6
Affects >= 2.6.11

drivers/video/ivtv/ivtvfb.c
Not fixed yet (patch has been queued)
Affects >= 2.6.24

---

Miscellaneous device ioctl stack leaks:

sound/pci/rme9652/hdsp*.c
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc6
Affects >= 2.6.0 (hdsp.c), >= 2.6.13 (hdspm.c)

drivers/video/via/ioctl.c
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc5
Affects >= 2.6.28

drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c (CVE-2010-3296)
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc5
Affects >= 2.6.21

drivers/net/eql.c (CVE-2010-3297)
Fixed in 2.6.36-rc5
Affects >= 2.6.0, >= 2.4.0

---

System call stack leak:

ipc/sem.c
Not fixed yet (patch queued)
Affects >= 2.6.0, >= 2.4.0



Whew.

-Dan

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Steven M. Christey
<coley () linus mitre org> wrote:
> When dealing with findings of this scale, sometimes the best we can do
> (within a reasonable amount of time) is to combine things.
>
> Let's consider the general guidelines of "split by vuln type" and "split by
> affected version."  Although the severity of each bug may vary, they all
> appear to be related to "not initializing re-used memory."
>
> The remaining question is how to determine "affected version."  Ideally one
> might like to know the minimum set of affected versions for each bug (both
> in 2.6 and 2.4), but this might not be readily available.  We could then
> just decide to split things based on which bugs got fixed in which 2.6.x.y
> release.  If Dan, Eugene, or someone else has that kind of information
> (which is painful for me to research as a kernel "outsider"), then we can
> group bugs that are fixed in the same 2.6.x.y release, then assign a single
> CVE to each group.
>
> We effectively exclude those one-off issues that are already assigned CVEs.
>
> - Steve