lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [stable] [PATCH] kernel 2.6.24.1 still vulnerable to the vmsplice local root exploit
    thanks the info

    On 2/10/08, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
    > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:02:27PM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote:
    > > thx it fixed for 2.6.22
    > >
    > > >>>>>>>
    > >
    > > commit f6e993b835393543bab2d917f9dea75218473edd
    > > Author: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>
    > > Date: Sun Feb 10 14:03:46 2008 +0100
    > >
    > > [PATCH] vm: splice local root exploit fix for 2.6.22.y
    > >
    > > Based on Bastian Blank's patch
    > >
    > > Fix for CVE_2008_0009 and CVE_2008-0010
    > >
    > > ----->8-----
    > >
    > > oliver@pancs:/tmp$ ./2617_26241_root_exploit
    > > -----------------------------------
    > > Linux vmsplice Local Root Exploit
    > > By qaaz
    > > -----------------------------------
    > > [+] mmap: 0x0 .. 0x1000
    > > [+] page: 0x0
    > > [+] page: 0x20
    > > [+] mmap: 0x4000 .. 0x5000
    > > [+] page: 0x4000
    > > [+] page: 0x4020
    > > [+] mmap: 0x1000 .. 0x2000
    > > [+] page: 0x1000
    > > [+] mmap: 0xb7f1a000 .. 0xb7f4c000
    > > [-] vmsplice: Bad address
    > >
    > > -----8<-----
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@gmail.com>
    > >
    > > diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
    > > index e263d3b..d8b106e 100644
    > > --- a/fs/splice.c
    > > +++ b/fs/splice.c
    > > @@ -1182,6 +1182,12 @@ static int get_iovec_page_array(const struct
    > > iovec __user *iov,
    > > if (unlikely(!base))
    > > break;
    > >
    > > + /* CVE-2008-0009, CVE-2008-0010 fix */
    >
    > No, this is a different CVE, as it is a different problem from the
    > original 09 and 10 report.
    >
    > It has been given CVE-2008-0600 to address this issue (09 and 10 only
    > affect .23 and .24 kernels, and have been fixed.)
    >
    > > + if(!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, base, len)) {
    > > + error = -EFAULT;
    > > + break;
    > > + }
    >
    > Hm, perhaps we should just properly check the len field instead? That's
    > what is being overflowed here...
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > greg k-h
    >


    --
    Thanks,
    Oliver


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-10 18:51    [W:0.072 / U:29.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site