* Re: CVE-2024-49993: iommu/vt-d: Fix potential lockup if qi_submit_sync called with 0 count [not found] <2024102138-CVE-2024-49993-5b57@gregkh> @ 2024-10-29 11:40 ` Brendan Jackman 2024-11-10 9:40 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Brendan Jackman @ 2024-10-29 11:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gregkh Cc: cve, linux-cve-announce, linux-kernel, kpsing, ciprietti, melotti, sanjay.k.kumar Hi Greg, > Currently, there is no impact > by this bug on the existing users because no callers are submitting > invalidations with 0 descriptors. I think this CVE could be discarded, the count arg is always hard-coded to 1. The buggy function isn't even exposed to modules so I think even if we care about out-of-tree code we should be OK here. (But based on [1] it sounds like out-of-tree code is probably out-of-scope for kernel CVEs anyway?) [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/cve.html#invalid-cves FWIW, I don't have any burning desire to kill this CVE in particular, I'm just testing the water to see if this is one reasonable way we could share some triage effort among consumers of kernel CVEs... Cheers, Brendan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: CVE-2024-49993: iommu/vt-d: Fix potential lockup if qi_submit_sync called with 0 count 2024-10-29 11:40 ` CVE-2024-49993: iommu/vt-d: Fix potential lockup if qi_submit_sync called with 0 count Brendan Jackman @ 2024-11-10 9:40 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2024-11-10 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brendan Jackman Cc: cve, linux-cve-announce, linux-kernel, kpsing, ciprietti, melotti, sanjay.k.kumar On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:40:08AM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > Currently, there is no impact > > by this bug on the existing users because no callers are submitting > > invalidations with 0 descriptors. > > I think this CVE could be discarded, the count arg is always hard-coded to 1. > The buggy function isn't even exposed to modules so I think even if we care > about out-of-tree code we should be OK here. (But based on [1] it sounds like > out-of-tree code is probably out-of-scope for kernel CVEs anyway?) > > [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/cve.html#invalid-cves Yes, out-of-tree code is on its own, for obvious reasons (i.e. we have no idea what they are doing, and they know exactly what we are doing...) > FWIW, I don't have any burning desire to kill this CVE in particular, I'm just > testing the water to see if this is one reasonable way we could share some > triage effort among consumers of kernel CVEs... Yes, you are right, this one should be rejected, and that's now done, thanks for the review. greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-11-10 9:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <2024102138-CVE-2024-49993-5b57@gregkh>
2024-10-29 11:40 ` CVE-2024-49993: iommu/vt-d: Fix potential lockup if qi_submit_sync called with 0 count Brendan Jackman
2024-11-10 9:40 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox