From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-fw-6001.amazon.com (smtp-fw-6001.amazon.com [52.95.48.154]) (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 757F71917E7; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=52.95.48.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743625400; cv=none; b=AYBsGiTsw6fSPNFJTI6d8NmdiDIEkCFM/siE9jKfm6PIDrHHZJQH55I+9SfjY2vBHGcyzdMQo4rdxAgYgE9Mm6H/grDf/C15NA+5IdVqIDgdR0lPgm55BrPUTEoHtPC21U5HKT1KUsnvayEmTQQM92p8oA+1qa7s9V55FLN2VIk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743625400; c=relaxed/simple; bh=B+O36yg5A5XPoTzoaWJvC8inENWYX8yWdPtFHWC748k=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SzcVgw6YAVlXFS1XvFvDM/0FLYKnC1/8L37+ySyWDzs90IiwyjhUlyROTcIJZcPn4EudCyluPJdsdl79a+/DHq0hYvICOwceQn+ZtryQSCAHeEK5vX7hrctWGLvezNPwhBGph3UsQEHLzBb7dpkp01fpf6LsXK4DoKEODVtg5SU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amazon.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amazon.co.jp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b=sT2tP2dF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=52.95.48.154 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amazon.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amazon.co.jp Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="sT2tP2dF" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1743625399; x=1775161399; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ctb6POoyh404vH+KjFkWC9B4g7iEU94Mtl3qduoJtog=; b=sT2tP2dF+FbexGa4gIx8owprD4407tD/KG9I07kvSg97uVwynTDnA91T K+0XJ89IFhRQjhaOEroLDpAmGpBVDnQrkyRrSpLonePuhPgImb3wMK5o9 u5DAQDemhtrrLtzLDTpDpLFHiiG4Olal6A/kIue+/pcgwZCmhw3hfmHHZ w=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,183,1739836800"; d="scan'208";a="476947229" Received: from iad12-co-svc-p1-lb1-vlan2.amazon.com (HELO smtpout.prod.us-west-2.prod.farcaster.email.amazon.dev) ([10.43.8.2]) by smtp-border-fw-6001.iad6.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2025 20:23:14 +0000 Received: from EX19MTAUWA001.ant.amazon.com [10.0.7.35:34346] by smtpin.naws.us-west-2.prod.farcaster.email.amazon.dev [10.0.10.98:2525] with esmtp (Farcaster) id 4fa530bb-68b7-4087-a078-61c6eba0c003; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:23:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Farcaster-Flow-ID: 4fa530bb-68b7-4087-a078-61c6eba0c003 Received: from EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) by EX19MTAUWA001.ant.amazon.com (10.250.64.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.2.1544.14; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:23:08 +0000 Received: from 6c7e67bfbae3.amazon.com (10.106.101.8) by EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.2.1544.14; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:23:05 +0000 From: Kuniyuki Iwashima To: CC: , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH][SMB3 client] fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:22:11 -0700 Message-ID: <20250402202257.5845-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.48.1 In-Reply-To: <2025040233-tuesday-regroup-5c66@gregkh> References: <2025040233-tuesday-regroup-5c66@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-ClientProxiedBy: EX19D041UWA004.ant.amazon.com (10.13.139.9) To EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) From: Greg KH Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:15:58 +0100 > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:09:19PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:18:37 +0100 > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:15:44PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 12:49:50PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it seems the previous description might not have been entirely clear. > > > > > > I need to clearly point out that this patch, intended as the fix for CVE-2024-54680, > > > > > > does not actually address any real issues. It also fails to resolve the null pointer > > > > > > dereference problem within lockdep. On top of that, it has caused a series of > > > > > > subsequent leakage issues. > > > > > > > > > > If this cve does not actually fix anything, then we can easily reject > > > > > it, please just let us know if that needs to happen here. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > Yes, I can confirm that the patch for CVE-2024-54680 (commit e9f2517a3e18) > > > > should be rejected. Our analysis shows: > > > > > > > > 1. It fails to address the actual null pointer dereference in lockdep > > > > > > > > 2. It introduces multiple serious issues: > > > > 1. A socket leak vulnerability as documented in bugzilla #219972 > > > > 2. Network namespace refcount imbalance issues as described in > > > > bugzilla #219792 (which required the follow-up mainline fix > > > > 4e7f1644f2ac "smb: client: Fix netns refcount imbalance > > > > causing leaks and use-after-free") > > > > > > > > The next thing we should probably do is: > > > > - Reverting e9f2517a3e18 > > > > - Reverting the follow-up fix 4e7f1644f2ac, as it's trying to fix > > > > problems introduced by the problematic CVE patch > > > > > > Great, can you please send patches now for both of these so we can > > > backport them to the stable kernels properly? > > > > Sent to CIFS tree: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/20250402200319.2834-1-kuniyu@amazon.com/ > > You forgot to add a Cc: stable@ on the patches to ensure that they get > picked up properly for all stable trees :( Ah sorry, I did the same with netdev. netdev patches usually do not have the tag but are backported fine, maybe netdev local rule ? > > Can you redo them? Sure, will resend. Thanks!