From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (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 1AF4B256C97; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 02:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745204393; cv=none; b=tLOK/ATl/2HnQ9NHYwpuzrqRo6DsXN0aDvuSXAzcqBFh27WXDsIpllsuoXDDSN0z32rCx2ltRxK8xEOyxNojOaKhW0zDHTc9Zve0Z2LWljzMpjRwC4WUAMC+B7kQOe4+uxxZdSKTIl60qZ0oxmUeDnATCNH7vJa7ahcOub1nUo4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745204393; c=relaxed/simple; bh=b3utdDm0Z6t9OefgFnK0cFUvw67lcxsX8bFrpK6UQHA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:CC:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=awXreRopvOfhi4NKz94oKZYB8Y/BbKt/caFV/fK7gFGnj5hGc/g36Ux7m3NBAc1FD+XXs5aZfiuz3BQUEf/rYjJuxg7K+YTZJZ7fY3+KbXPBtuD63feUM/6GOEUKa+IVEfoMCdH94xWF34Br5rKblnY9YAwxqp57A1IUR0qi6Q8= 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=45.249.212.187 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 [172.19.163.48]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Zgqk40xgBzvWpP; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 10:55:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4700D180080; Mon, 21 Apr 2025 10:59:48 +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 10:59:47 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 10:59:47 +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 From: Wang Zhaolong To: , , CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman References: <2025041612-CVE-2025-22077-d534@gregkh> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemg500010.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.71) Given these findings, I recommend updating CVE-2025-22077 to reflect that the true fix is the reversion of e9f2517a3e18 (via commit 95d2b9f693ff). Best regards, Wang Zhaolong > Dear CVE Community, > > As the author of commit 4e7f1644f2ac ("smb: client: Fix netns refcount imbalance > causing leaks and use-after-free"), I want to clarify some confusion around the > proper fixes for these issues: > > 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"). > > 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) > > 3. Our testing and analysis confirms that the original fix by Kuniyuki Iwashima, > commit ef7134c7fc48 ("smb: client: Fix use-after-free of network namespace."), is > actually the correct approach. This patch properly handles network namespace > reference counting without introducing the problems that e9f2517a3e18 did. > > 4. The proper resolution for these issues was ultimately commit 95d2b9f693ff > ("Revert 'smb: client: fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod'"), which reverted > the problematic patch. In the latest Linux mainline code, the problematic patch and > my subsequent fix patch have been reverted.[2][3] > > Thank you for your attention to this matter. I'm happy to provide additional details if needed. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/2025040248-tummy-smilingly-4240@gregkh/ > [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/c707193a17128fae2802d10cbad7239cc57f0c95 > [3] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/4e7f1644f2ac6d01dc584f6301c3b1d5aac4eaef > > Best regards, > Wang Zhaolong >