Re: CVE-2023-52560: mm/damon/vaddr-test: fix memory leak in damon_do_test_apply_three_regions()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 08:49:42AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 05-03-24 22:25:11, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Sat 02-03-24 22:59:54, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Description
> > > > ===========
> > > > 
> > > > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> > > > 
> > > > mm/damon/vaddr-test: fix memory leak in damon_do_test_apply_three_regions()
> > > > 
> > > > When CONFIG_DAMON_VADDR_KUNIT_TEST=y and making CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK=y
> > > > and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK_AUTO_SCAN=y, the below memory leak is detected.
> > > 
> > > This is a kunit test case AFAICS. Is this really a CVE material?
> > 
> > People run kunit tests on real systems (again, we do not dictate use
> > cases.)  So yes, fixing a memory leak that can be triggered is resolving
> > a weakness and so should get a CVE I would think, right?
> 
> This is stretching the meaning of CVE beyond my imagination. Up to you
> to decide but I yet have to see a real production system that casually
> runs unit test just for <looking for a reason .... but failed>.

I know of at least one place that uses kunit tests in "production", and
I know of more that will be enabling them in newer releases, so this is
a real thing.  Again, we just mark "fixes for a weakness" as a CVE and
let others decide what to do with it.

thanks,

greg k-h