On 12/14/2016 03:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
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 <saly...@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

Nothing is going on here, it is a heads up, eventually CVE's get backported to stable as we do take them in through those paths. Telling you to be aware that the original commit causes a leak, and my experience has found that the leak affects these four file system drivers.


-- Mark

Reply via email to