Skip to contentSkip to conversation

425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

DISCUSSION Zubin Mithra 4 participants 7 messages Jun 3, 2019 – Jun 8, 2019 Stable branch

lore
Share & tools
lore

Zubin Mithra

author
#0 lore raw

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Tests run:
* Chrome OS tryjobs

Thanks,
- Zubin

maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Zubin Mithra

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Same comments here as on the ipv6 bug.

Should I just go create CVEs for every single stable kernel patches?

Actually, it's been often suggested that I should, just to drive the point home...

thanks,

greg k-h

#2 lore raw
In reply to Zubin Mithra
Quoted 9 lines · Zubin Mithra

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Tests run:
* Chrome OS tryjobs

This doesn't fix a security vulnerability. There already was a check for allocation failure before dereferencing the returned pointer; it just wasn't in the most obvious place.

I've requested rejection of this CVE, and several other invalid reports from the same person.

Ben.

Signature · 3 lines
Ben Hutchings
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes
instead of old ones.
#3 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Ben Hutchings
Quoted 5 lines · Zubin Mithra

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Tests run:
* Chrome OS tryjobs

This doesn't fix a security vulnerability. There already was a check for allocation failure before dereferencing the returned pointer; it just wasn't in the most obvious place.

I've discussing this with others these days. You mean the check if (!new_ra)? I don't think this check is for allocation failure. Because 'new_ra' is NULL when 'on' is zero. The check should be if (on && !new_ra) if it is for memory allocation failure.

Quoted 3 lines

I've requested rejection of this CVE, and several other invalid reports from the same person.

I think I should be in the CC list. Should I?

Thanks
Gen

Quoted 9 lines

Ben.

Signature · 3 lines
Ben Hutchings
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes
instead of old ones.
#4 lore raw
In reply to Ben Hutchings
Quoted 11 lines · Ben Hutchings
Quoted 9 lines · Zubin Mithra

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Tests run:
* Chrome OS tryjobs

Quoted 6 lines

This doesn't fix a security vulnerability. There already was a check for allocation failure before dereferencing the returned pointer; it just wasn't in the most obvious place.

I've requested rejection of this CVE, and several other invalid reports from the same person.

And where did this 'invalid' come from? Did any maintainers claimed the patch 'invalid' or something? I am confused...

Thanks
Gen

Quoted 9 lines

Ben.

Signature · 3 lines
Ben Hutchings
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes
instead of old ones.
#5 lore raw
Quoted 12 lines · Gen Zhang
Quoted 11 lines · Ben Hutchings
Quoted 9 lines · Zubin Mithra

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Tests run:
* Chrome OS tryjobs

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines

This doesn't fix a security vulnerability. There already was a check for allocation failure before dereferencing the returned pointer; it just wasn't in the most obvious place.

I've requested rejection of this CVE, and several other invalid reports from the same person.

And where did this 'invalid' come from? Did any maintainers claimed the patch 'invalid' or something? I am confused...

I'm not saying the patch is invalid. It makes the code clearer and seems to result in returning a more appropriate error code. So I don't disagree with the patch, only the claim that it's fixing a security issue.

My requests to reject the CVE assignments were made using MITRE's web form.

Ben.

Signature · 2 lines
Ben Hutchings
Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.
#6 lore raw
Quoted 22 lines · Ben Hutchings
Quoted 12 lines · Gen Zhang
Quoted 11 lines · Ben Hutchings
Quoted 9 lines · Zubin Mithra

Hello,

CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
* 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")

Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?

Tests run:
* Chrome OS tryjobs

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines

This doesn't fix a security vulnerability. There already was a check for allocation failure before dereferencing the returned pointer; it just wasn't in the most obvious place.

I've requested rejection of this CVE, and several other invalid reports from the same person.

And where did this 'invalid' come from? Did any maintainers claimed the patch 'invalid' or something? I am confused...

Quoted 7 lines

I'm not saying the patch is invalid. It makes the code clearer and seems to result in returning a more appropriate error code. So I don't disagree with the patch, only the claim that it's fixing a security issue.

My requests to reject the CVE assignments were made using MITRE's web form.

Well, I see. Thanks for your comments.

Thanks
Gen

Quoted 8 lines

Ben.

Signature · 2 lines
Ben Hutchings
Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.