Re: CVE-2024-46701: libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset dir

Re: CVE-2024-46701: libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset dir

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:35:33PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi, all!
> 
> This is a request to close this CVE.
> 
> First of all, I think this really is not a kernel BUG, the deadloop
> only exist in user side and user must rename between each readdir
> syscall:
> 
> while (readdr() > 0)
> 	rename()

Sounds like a real thing that users can do, so why does this not fit the
definition of "vulnerability" as documented by cve.org?

> On the other hand, v6.6 is affected by this CVE, and this fix can't
> be backported to v6.6 because the patchset [1] must be backported first
> to expand offset from 32-bit to 64-bit.(This kind of refactor will
> break kabi, hence it's not acceptable in our downstream kernels)

That's your business decision, and does not affect if we do, or do not,
assign a CVE at all.  Go work with your management if you wish to change
this as it does not pertain to the community in any way.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: CVE-2024-46701: libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset dir

[Yu Kuai]

Hi,

在 2024/09/24 17:03, Greg KH 写道:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:35:33PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> Hi, all!
>>
>> This is a request to close this CVE.
>>
>> First of all, I think this really is not a kernel BUG, the deadloop
>> only exist in user side and user must rename between each readdir
>> syscall:
>>
>> while (readdr() > 0)
>> 	rename()
> 
> Sounds like a real thing that users can do, so why does this not fit the
> definition of "vulnerability" as documented by cve.org?

If user want to trigger the deadloop that readdir never return 0, then
user must keep rename inside this dir asynchronously and *never stop*,
this looks like shooting oneself in the foot for me.
> 
>> On the other hand, v6.6 is affected by this CVE, and this fix can't
>> be backported to v6.6 because the patchset [1] must be backported first
>> to expand offset from 32-bit to 64-bit.(This kind of refactor will
>> break kabi, hence it's not acceptable in our downstream kernels)
> 
> That's your business decision, and does not affect if we do, or do not,
> assign a CVE at all.  Go work with your management if you wish to change
> this as it does not pertain to the community in any way.

Yes, I understand, This is just the reason why I tried to close this
CVE, please ignore this.

BTW, if you still think this CVE is valid, can we bakport the refactor
patchset to v6.6 as well? I can sent the patches to 6.6 lts, just let me
know.

Thanks,
Kuai

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> .
> 

Re: CVE-2024-46701: libfs: fix infinite directory reads for offset dir

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 05:44:29PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > On the other hand, v6.6 is affected by this CVE, and this fix can't
> > > be backported to v6.6 because the patchset [1] must be backported first
> > > to expand offset from 32-bit to 64-bit.(This kind of refactor will
> > > break kabi, hence it's not acceptable in our downstream kernels)
> > 
> > That's your business decision, and does not affect if we do, or do not,
> > assign a CVE at all.  Go work with your management if you wish to change
> > this as it does not pertain to the community in any way.
> 
> Yes, I understand, This is just the reason why I tried to close this
> CVE, please ignore this.
> 
> BTW, if you still think this CVE is valid, can we bakport the refactor
> patchset to v6.6 as well? I can sent the patches to 6.6 lts, just let me
> know.

Sure, send them on, we are always willing to review potential stable
patches, to the stable@vger.kernel.org list.

thanks,

greg k-h