Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 May 2024 23:23:30 +0900 | From | Dominique Martinet <> | Subject | Re: CVE-2022-48655: firmware: arm_scmi: Harden accesses to the reset domains |
| |
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote on Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:55:15AM +0100: > > I can submit an edit as a patch to vulns.git json, but this doesn't seem > > overly important so for now a mail will probably do. > > the json and mbox files are generated by tools, so patches to them is > not a good idea as they will be overwritten the next time the scripts > are run.
Just let me know what's the most convenient; if mail it is I won't bother :)
> > >From a quick look it would seem it fixes arm_scmi from the addition of > > scmi_domain_reset() in 95a15d80aa0d ("firmware: arm_scmi: Add RESET > > protocol in SCMI v2.0"), which first appeared in v5.4-rc1, and does not > > appear to have been backported to older kernels, so v5.4+ can be added > > as a requirement. > > We can add a "this is where the problem showed up" if you know it, so > that would be 95a15d80aa0d ("firmware: arm_scmi: Add RESET protocol in > SCMI v2.0"), correct?
Yes; this commit adds the out of bound access.
> > This means the current 5.4/5.10 trees are affected; the commit doesn't > > backport cleanly because of a trivial context conflict so if that helps > > I can send a couple of stable patch if that helps even if our systems > > are not using arm_scmi (CVEs also don't have any way of expressing > > whether the affected driver is used (or even built) at all, so I guess > > people with affected versions will have to check that themselves...) > > As everyone has different configurations, yes, everyone needs to check > themselves, there is no way for us to determine this at all. But we do > list the files affected, so that should help you out in determining this > automatically on your end.
I didn't see hte list of files anywhere for this, does it depend on the commit? (not that it's a problem to look at the commits referenced, I don't think we'll automate anything for the forseeable future)
> And yes, backported patches would be always appreciated for older > kernels if you have them.
Sure, I'll take a min to finish the patches and send them on Monday; might as well use work time when I've got an excuse to do kernel stuff.
Thanks, -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus
| |