Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:30:06 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: CVE-2016-7097 causes acl leak |
| |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:20:50PM -0800, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > On 12/13/2016 04:00 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 03:42:58PM -0800, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > > > On 12/12/2016 10:26 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com> wrote: > > > > > The leaks were introduced in 9p, gfs2, jfs and xfs drivers only. > > > > Only the 9p case is obvious to me: > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/9p/acl.c b/fs/9p/acl.c > > > > index b3c2cc7..082d227 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/9p/acl.c > > > > +++ b/fs/9p/acl.c > > > > @@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ static int v9fs_xattr_set_acl(const struct > > > > xattr_handler *handler, > > > > case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS: > > > > if (acl) { > > > > struct iattr iattr; > > > > + struct posix_acl *old_acl = acl; > > > > > > > > retval = posix_acl_update_mode(inode, > > > > &iattr.ia_mode, &acl); > > > > if (retval) > > > > @@ -287,6 +288,7 @@ static int v9fs_xattr_set_acl(const struct > > > > xattr_handler *handler, > > > > * by the mode bits. So don't > > > > * update ACL. > > > > */ > > > > + posix_acl_release(old_acl); > > > > value = NULL; > > > > size = 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest are anti-pattern (modifying parameters on stack via address) > > > > but look correct. > > > Greg KH: Beware that this similar fix needs to be applied to _backports_ to > > > stable kernel trees on other filesystem driver that have the same pattern > > > (with local posix_acl_release(acl) calls). I have found that depending on > > > vintage these would include this driver 9p, and possibly gfs2, jfs and xfs. > > > Be aware. > > I don't understand what you mean here. What needs to be "backported" to > > the stable tree? What commit in Linus's tree do I pick? If not a > > commit there, where is it? > > > > totally confused, > > > > greg k-h > > In 3.10-stable if you took the original CVE-2016-7097 fix it could break > four file system drivers, the fix for each would 'look like' this one fix > for the 9p driver.
Did I take the fix in 3.10-stable? What was the git commit id? Is 3.10 "broken" in this way? Is any other stable kernel broken?
I still don't have any idea of what is going on here...
greg k-h
| |