Re: Fw: Buffer overflow in CIFS VFS.

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Steve French wrote:
> > You are correct that the CIFS code calls SendReceive in cases in which
> > the buffer may be too small to fit a large SMB response, and that
> > should be fixed (e.g. to avoid possible overflows due to a server
> > bug), None of the eight cases (SMB TreeDisconnect, SMB uLogoff, SMB
> > Close, SMB FindClose etc.) in which a small buffer is passed in to
> > SendReceive return more than a few dozen bytes (and they are fixed
> > size responses), but I agree that we have to be safe (and we have seen
> > at least one server corrupt the bcc in the ulogoffX response and
> > another on the NTCreateX response) so it would be good to fix.
> >   
> Well, mounting shares from untrusted server is quite uncommon, still
> buffer overrun shall be considered a serious issue, imho.

Also, a compromised machine on the same network could forge the
malicious reply in some cases, right?

--b.