Re: CVE-2014-4699: Linux ptrace bug

[John Johansen <john.johansen () canonical com>]

On 07/05/2014 08:37 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 14-07-05 05:22 PM, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > On sam., 2014-07-05 at 22:25 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > Here are some distro vendor status pages on this bug:
> > >
> > > "x86_64,ptrace: Enforce RIP <= TASK_SIZE_MAX (CVE-2014-4699)"
> > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1337339
> > >
> > > Ubuntu has just sent out 7 update announcements (for different of
> > > their
> > > supported distros/kernels), USN-2266-1 through USN-2272-1.
> > >
> > > "ptrace,x86: force IRET path after a ptrace_stop()"
> > > http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel/commit/?h=openSUSE-13.1&id=d1f26676dad578a65c94782f0c2bd00b7aa68f1b
> > >
> > > "CVE-2014-4699 Kernel: x86_64,ptrace: Enforce RIP <= TASK_SIZE_MAX"
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115927
> >
> > Hmhm, what are the reasons why the mainline (and opensuse) fix
> > (b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a) is to force using IRET
> > instead of SYSRET, while distros like Ubuntu and Redhat seem to “only”
> > make sure RIP is canonical?
> >
> > Regards,
>
> AFAIK, our plan is to switch to the upstream fix for the next kernel updates.
yep, Ubuntu went with the original patch, as we where mostly through our process
when b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a hit. We decided to do a release with
the original patch so we could get something out this weekend, but will switch to
b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a asap