From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A1F13A418; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.190 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745245113; cv=none; b=OJoVvEpKtWZfHkXUN/tdZ2QL+itaZf6sEM5VQnL6ajCwi0vPcpgVL04dfkf5eKjg6f42aTTYp95LDUrnFhIGK3k1pxINp2IIckfb9xjoVHnmu3yusaFZAPkFtDXqiz8vX3ueNu61ZdXzAX6CPOw21K1iZ98tYygnMS+h85yPfPI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745245113; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hVkZBfs5Z+uRfS8N9TKs0Et878ZYWO+BgKsgiFt3bEw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=OPyJABFa5NsK41ES4F5xLblZ3qQhjNKETd0A626SpxR3x1BnTuaHbKPYBZQBklCaoWOckkmUhpEfOtucJ8tRVvlpOHJ+YyXBv78wiHtIxvb8Y7uksglsUIS+VZdiVeMZndKbZnIqzYwkZ9BTXoxbPptlJjBP3dU9oVqfFlAYKWk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.190 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.17]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Zh6ns6S7Wz2CdT6; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:14:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 753C01A0188; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:18:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.209] (10.174.178.209) by kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:18:25 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:18:25 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: CVE-2025-22077: smb: client: Fix netns refcount imbalance causing leaks and use-after-free To: Greg KH CC: , , References: <2025041612-CVE-2025-22077-d534@gregkh> <2025042111-provable-activism-ec0e@gregkh> From: Wang Zhaolong In-Reply-To: <2025042111-provable-activism-ec0e@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.71) Hi Greg, I apologize for the confusion. Let me clarify the situation more directly: >>> >>> 1. Commit 4e7f1644f2ac is currently associated with CVE-2025-22077. However, this >>> patch was merely attempting to fix issues introduced by commit e9f2517a3e18 ("smb: >>> client: fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod"). > > Did it not fix those issues? If not, we can reject that CVE, please let > us know. Yes, commit 4e7f1644f2ac did attempt to fix the issues introduced by e9f2517a3e18, but it only fixed part of the issues introduced by e9f2517a3e18. > >>> 2. As I've previously discussed with Greg Kroah-Hartman on the kernel mailing list[1], >>>    commit e9f2517a3e18 (which was intended to address CVE-2024-54680): >>>    - Failed to address the actual null pointer dereference in lockdep >>>    - Introduced multiple serious issues: >>>      - Socket leak vulnerability (bugzilla #219972) >>>      - Network namespace refcount imbalance (bugzilla #219792) > > So this commit did not actually do anything? If so, we can reject this > CVE. > e9f2517a3e18 did not fix any issues and instead introduced a series of problems. Here's the actual sequence: 1. CVE-2024-53095 vulnerability: Use-after-free of network namespace in SMB client and it's correct fix: ef7134c7fc48 by Kuniyuki Iwashima 3. Problematic patch: e9f2517a3e18 (intended for CVE-2024-54680) fixed nothing and introduced new issues while trying to "fix" a non-existent deadlock. ** CVE-2024-54680 has been rejected ** 4. Attempted fix for some reference count issues: My patch 4e7f1644f2ac (assigned CVE-2025-22077) 5. Final resolution: Revert the problematic patch e9f2517a3e18 via commit 95d2b9f693ff ("Revert "smb: client: fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod""). What I'm requesting: - CVE-2025-22077 should be associated with commit 95d2b9f693ff, which is the actual final fix. Best regards, Wang Zhaolong